This is an annotated version. By that it is meant that the reader has included hyperlinks to subject references at Wikipedia and other sources on the Internet that were not part of the original text. Bookmarks have also been strategically placed throughout the text in [bold] and can easily be “jumped” to from the [List of References] located in the appendix of this book. The Table of Contents [TOC] has also been reworked and bookmarked to allow the reader quick connecting to the many topics Dr. Glad covers in his exceptional work on the subject of “Eugenics”. And, where the reader has taken exception to the way the original author, Dr. Glad has presented his text in English, that text has been grammatically altered to provide an easier future reading for the newly curious of the subject of “Eugenics”. No changes were made, however, to the author’s original intent or message.

As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | John Glad

3

Links to specific web-sites or places on the Internet are also enclosed in quotes. Cliking the bookmarks that are embedded in the bolded and bracketed [last name]’s of the persons listed in the reference section of the appendix will “jump” the reader to each person’s corresponding quote or citation in the text.4
John Glad Key
Links to external pages on the Internet such as “Wikipedia’ are enclosed in quotes and italicized for topics. but underlined rather than italicized. For example.
4
John Glad | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
. “Eugenics”. “Bar-Ilan Univ”. If the selected person has a 2nd or 3rd quote or citation. then clik the [] symbol to “jump” further through the document. For example.

Preface
John Glad is a brave scholar. He here ventures onto the high seas of contemporary intellectual “interdict”. The term “Eugenics” has been placed on the ideological hit list for years by both the irrational left, and as well as by an intimidated public. However, as Dr. Glad points out, clearly and authoritatively, there is virtually no factual basis for what can only be seen as a “totemic” reaction. The mere mention of “Eugenics” elicits the knee-jerk reaction— [NAZI] “genocide”, “forced sterilization.”, etc. Yet by any standard of rational analysis, “Eugenics” boasts a very strong “humanistic” tradition to support its further application. The real history of “Eugenics”, as Dr. Glad points out is rich in a truly liberal vision for the improvement in the state of all of humankind. And, modern research in the biological nature of many human functions is opening up opportunities for the enhancement of both the physical as well as the mental condition of the human species. All this, at a blazingly fast speed of discovery ! Therefore, we need thinkers such as John Glad who will step up to the challenge of blind prejudice and counter with fact and possibility.

8

Preface | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)

the [NAZI]’s also claimed to be a party of “socialism”. within a babble of propaganda that presumably validated to the naïve. though still buried within a demonization of language and misunderstanding. For that matter. physical as well as mental practices that benefit community in the local sense. a mirage of self-justification. I would like to add a comment to Dr. their unspeakable practices.Preface
9
The “Eugenics” movement. a vision of human betterment with real scientific and social-policy potential. then we can say unequivocally that the Holocaust was the “anti-thesis” of real “Eugenic” practice. A careful reading of their mission statements. and of course. Critical to the linguistic and semantic morass that surrounds this paralysis of understanding are the “spectral” memories of the German and complacent European perpetration of the Holocaust. will clearly reveal to the reader that the [NAZI‘’s fully realized they were truly attempting to eliminate a sub-group of people who were known for many past achievements and who possessed a unique [IQ] ability. as well as the species in general. has an enhancing and evolutionary future for our species. Glad’s clear and decisive puncturing of the balloon of myths surrounding the [NAZI] perversion of the “Eugenics” movement. but rather a “hatred” of “race”. as do all totalitarian regimes. The [NAZI‘’s hid their practices. One only has to read the bounty of “polemics” arising from the German-Austrian political-cultural scene from the midnineteenth century on up to the decades of the 193:’s and 194:’s to realize that the “hatred” of the Jewish people was not a “hatred” of religion.
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | Preface 9
. if you can believe that ! If we define the “Eugenics” movement as encompassing programs of human betterment.

Glad suggests. “the final solution” was then conjured up by Hitler and his minions… namely. and the occupied lands up until January of 1942 when the [NAZI] leaders stood and watched. If Germany would not be able to prevail. resulting in a chaos of despicable cruelty in Germany and Austria. as Dr. and then was followed equally by further [NAZI] accession to power in Austria in 1938. There was truly “hatred” in the air. then no Jew would be left alive to gloat vindictively of their own victory. and realized that Britain and the Soviet Union stood strong against their aggression. The genocide began with the [NAZI] accession to power in Germany in 1933. north of Berlin. I here. the industrial annihilation of the remaining Jews of Europe. Rather. to ultimately rid Europe of a people who as a sub-group possessed an unusually high average intelligent quotient [IQ]. Another sad mental block over the real meaning of the
Holocaust.10
Preface
Thus the genocide of the Jews. but many German and Austrian Jews made good their escapes. re-armed in a fury. At Wannsee. and here within the Jewish community itself is the Jews’ refusal to accept this event as an exemplar of “dysgenics”.
10
Preface | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
. gently demur. while the United States bruised after Pearl Harbor. in which all of Europe became eager participants by their complacency was not an example of “Eugenics” gone astray. It was both chaotic and bestial. the Holocaust was a vast “dysgenic” program perpetrated by a numerically and politically minuscule minority of challengers to the then existing Christian domination of Europe.

as noted above. the “dysgenic” destruction of tens of millions of the most intelligent [IQ] and productive human beings on our planet.” we have thus given in to the defamation of the ideals of the “Eugenics” movement. many fear. By not recognizing the twentieth century’s true “achievement. that by proclaimed past [NAZI] ideology became a supposed “liberal” and “humanitarian” vision turned to dross.Preface
11
To do so.
The Ideology of Hate
How else can we understand the ideology of hate during the past 20th century that brought about the destruction of so many talented human beings by members of civilization allied to achieving ethnic and social class groups? Thus we have witnessed. It is doubly important to emphasize the visionary qualities of Dr. would only reify the view that the Jewish people still considered themselves among the elect.k. a pre-meditated program of “dysgenics” a.
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | Preface
11
. from Armenia to Biafra to Cambodia.a an “aristocide” as also was with too many other genocides of the twentieth century. The events in Europe during these decades were in fact truly not an exemplification of the theory of “Eugenics”. we have made far more difficult the wider clarification of the true implications of “Eugenics”. and the chosen as the Torah implies. Rather it was. Glad’s book. Thus. To admit this would presumably bring down again a “vale of tears” upon them.

Proposed Measures
  
A universal high intelligence quotient mean [IQ]. we need to envision clearly what measures humanity needs and take the pathway to create a future of hope. and careful judicial and moral monitoring that can give us the world for which we yearn. Not merely the identification of potential disabilities in unborn children. Dr. It requires a revolutionary turnabout from present dogmatic international thinking. even to the extent of the “Cloning” of a desired child when no other pathway of biological reproduction is possible.
We are on the cusp of a scientific reality. Scientists today are searching for the genes and corresponding transcription factors that determine variations in intelligence [IQ]. and the methods that will allow mothers and fathers to choose the potential intelligence [IQ] of their child-tobe. and A pragmatic analysis of the facts of our current situation. The rub is that we now have to teach the elites of society those biologically determinant decisions that are guided by scientific knowledge. Instead of dissipating our wealth to remediate what cannot be remediated.12
Preface
A twenty-first century campaign for the “Eugenic” ideal must impress upon educated and uneducated alike that the problems that we face require a healthy humanity living in tune with nature. the solving of the sadness of infertility. the uncovering of a human biological nature as never before dreamed possible. The dissemination of “Altruism”.
12 Preface | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
. Glad makes this clear.

not the tragic morass of pathologies that the so-called “egalitarians” are pulling down over the heads of our grandchildren. many more readers. Seymour W. I am sure it will achieve this goal.Preface
13
Here is real. Itzkoff. empirical and scientifically supported evidence for humanity’s hope. [] Smith College
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | Preface
13
. John Glad’s “Future Human Evolution” is an important book and the book needs many.

“Freudianism”. or ever so many generations hence.”
Walt Whitman. B. and that it is upbringing and education alone which explain the differences among us. “marxism”. not merely as an ethical principle. It is remarkable that this unspoken assumption of stasis coincided with a revolution in our understanding of genetics as an ongoing process. The road to utopia lies through improved nurture alone. F. Western society of the twentieth century came to be dominated by a new. Skinner’s “behaviorism”. unified ideology. you men and women of a generation. It was explained over and over that human minds differ little in their innate qualities. “Crossing Brooklyn Ferry” [] The Great World War I and the subsequent Great Depression undermined the mentality of Empire and class privilege leaving a vacuum that was filled by an intellectual climate that asserted the equality of all human beings. hardware is identical and thus meaningless. Franz Boaz’s “cultural history” and Margaret Mead’s “anthropology” all stressed the marvelous “plasticity” and even “programmability” of our species “Homo sapiens”. Software is everything.
14 Introduction | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
. During the last third of the twentieth century.14
Introduction
Introduction
“I am with you. they largely avoided the topic of humanity’s current and future evolution. even while scientists actively promoted the theory of evolution. but as a biological fact.

But. if not resolution. and even the most implacable deniers of significant human genetic variation concede that the former “darwinian” dialogue has been re-launched. a single ideological spark in this area has the potential to set off an allconsuming conflagration replete with the hostility that all too often squeezes out rational discussion.Introduction
15
The censorship has now been lifted. The issues involved are so fraught with consequence at all levels of society that tiny as the group of individuals concerned over the future genetic composition of humankind is. In this book I attempt to present the ethical and scientific foundations of “genetic interventionism”. I wish to express my gratitude to all those who gave so generously of their time in preparing the various drafts of this book:
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | Introduction
15
. no matter how uncomfortable society is with these issues. demanding at least recognition. they already stand before us.

we need a map – a concept of being and of our place in the universe – and thus we engage in elaborate mythmaking to fill the vacuum that we find so intolerable. however. Regardless of when or where we live. if we are better crafters of weapons. And.Genetic Interventionism
17
Genetic Interventionism
Much as we humans might pride ourselves on our achievements. we inevitably perceive ourselves as the “Middle Kingdom”. can even contradict itself – not to mention be at absolute variance with the real world.
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | Genetic Interventionism
17
. but it sure helps. we are really little closer to resolving the great questions of being than when we still dwelled in caves. then we are generally better able to persuade those we have physically conquered of the superiority of our “myths” over theirs. and then assuage our fears and satisfy our longings. To be “durable”. and either we smile condescendingly at the “mythmaking” of various other cultures or we go to war with these cultures to force upon them our perceived uniquely correct vision of the worldview. Until the mid-nineteenth century. Logic is not a prerequisite to understanding this. but then the theory of evolution popped up and presented us all with a radically different explanation of man’s origins. Time extending endlessly backward or forward is as unimaginable as is time having a beginning or an end. the Western world accepted a literal interpretation of the Hebrew Book of Genesis. Psychologically. Because “myth” as we know it. a worldview must first explain the universe to us.

Contradictions
 While other species of animal and plant can undergo significant genetic change over a few generations. Indeed. we maintain that thousands of generations of the most radically varying conditions of selection and selective mating has left only the most superficial genetic variance within our own species.  But.  Even as society paid a premium for ability and gumption in virtually all and any form of activity. not surprisingly is ripe with contradictions. the scholars who dominated the publishing marketplace and who also dominated academia became to deny the very existence of innate intelligence quotient [IQ] variance in human populations. not the man in the street) were firmly convinced that we were the product of “evolution”. intellectuals were also equally entrenched in the odd assumption that human beings were THE ONE SPECIES no longer affected by that process.18
Genetic Interventionism
As a result.
18
Genetic Interventionism | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
. it became fashionable to claim that such factors played no role in the formation of social classes.  Intellectuals (albeit. which were held to be entirely a function of chance and privilege. at the same time. society has forged a new “mythology” which. attempting to reconcile religion with science. as follows.

scientists observed that generation after generation of the intellectually endowed were failing to replace themselves–exactly as was feared by earlier “Eugenicists” – but. efficiently exploiting and manipulating these castes. but its findings were widely declared to be not merely approximate.
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | Genetic Interventionism
19
.  With the transition to smaller families.  We created a genetic caste society that co-opted talent born into the less privileged castes.  We became more and more successful at implementing a process called “medicine” for the elimination of natural selection. our perception of this process remained governed by a myriad of camouflaging taboos and fetishes.  Hard at work deciphering the map of the human genome. but lacking in any validity whatever. but remained blissfully indifferent to the existential threat that these short-term successes posed for future generations. while at the same time proclaiming “equality of opportunity” as our slogan. like that of all other animal species was necessarily centered on the mating ritual. society accepted the phenomenon as natural.  While our social conduct.Genetic Interventionism Results of Denial
19
 A huge academic testing industry sprang up. we continued to apply moral criteria to behavior that would soon become scientifically explainable.

Despite popular opinion and prejudice.  Freeing ourselves (very temporarily) from the constraints of natural selection and the limitations of natural resources.20
Genetic Interventionism And. but by the creation of new “myths” that amount to a denial of biology. all the while ruthlessly excoriating any opinion in the area of human genetics found offensive by any significant segment of society.  But. so that future generations were not even taken into consideration during the decision-making process.  This topic became and was “off-limits” as a target of social engineering even to this day. Thus. we refused to recognize that we had become a species that perfectly fit the definition of “diseased”. wrecking havoc on ourselves and our fellow species in a massive assault on the host that we parasitize – the planet. yet we proclaimed still greater levels of consumption as the goal of society. who wants to see him or herself in this role?  We created an unsustainable economy dependent on resource exhaustion. but one of the chief causes of such lopsided visions of opportunity was “the difference in genetic endowment between people”. the facts of science are inescapable. not by the elimination of “myth”. the revolution in technology was accompanied.  We proclaimed freedom of speech. The give and take of the political process was necessarily determined by the relative power of the participants.
20
Genetic Interventionism | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
. a few more
 “Equality of opportunity” was proclaimed as the great goal of society.

As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | Genetic Interventionism
21
. humankind will have evolved genetically. differing only in upbringing. We now have selection by fertility rather than by mortality – a revolutionary change. At the same time. it is not those who have survived a horrendous process of natural selection who will populate the planet in the future.Genetic Interventionism
21
In the time you take to read this sentence. there are many others who have been less fortunate. Ultimately. but those who have the most offspring. broadly “altruistic” adults. however. intelligent children who will grow up to be emotionally balanced. The “Eugenics” movement. but also that we are all virtually identical. there is no denying the fact that while the genetic lottery has indeed produced many winners. On a theoretical plane we are now – finally – in agreement that “equality of opportunity” is a desirable goal. we can still define what we want – healthy. This is the great watershed dividing those who favor “genetic intervention” and those who oppose it. Now. however. we have to decide how pleased we are with ourselves as a species. which can be understood as a form of “human ecology”. we find ourselves in the grip of a social ethos that insists not only should we enjoy equal rights. has long considered itself a lobby for future generations arguing that while it is true that we should not be presumptuous in our ability to predict the future. Regardless of our personal attitudes. when the majority of people live far beyond their childbearing years.

all ethnic groups have produced winners as well as losers in the genetic lottery. Many of our everyday decisions are fraught with genetic consequences. We are not identical machines with differing software. each of us is a unique individual.22
Genetic Interventionism
Mercifully. Who is having the babies. In denying free day care and financial child support to all but the welfare population. But. This can include a stroll to the nearest pharmacy to purchase contraceptive devices. joyously. no decision is also a decision. and this uniqueness extends to the ethnic and national sub-groups that we form.
22
Genetic Interventionism | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
. our government provides incentives to some groups to bear children and disincentives to others. and how many? Anything that influences fertility is a factor in the new selection. or a decision to reduce or even renounce childbearing so as to be able to advance career and education. Interventionists argue that it is our moral duty to do our utmost to pass on to our children – not the same heritage – but the best. “Anti-interventionists” point out that in breaking off the precious baton handed down from generation to generation. we can easily produce an irreparable disaster. Without exception. unique heritage possible for each of them. a visit to an abortion clinic.

and kindly. In the words of Sir Francis Galton. It is based on a rational philosophy of life and love for our children. and of an awareness of the burdens and responsibilities of parenthood. “Eugenicists” believe we have no choice other than to agree in the area of reproduction to bring our interests in line with those of future generations. quickly.
“What nature does blindly.Genetic Interventionism
23
This policy has already become a momentous factor in genetic selection. It is proffered in the spirit of collegial friendship to concerned men and women of good will – both to the proponents of the
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | Genetic Interventionism
23
. slowly and ruthlessly. managing our populations according to principles that are uncontested when applied to all other species. “Eugenicists” advocate replacing “natural selection” with “scientific selection”. the “Founding Father” of the marriage of “Eugenics” and “Statistics”. As it lies within his power. To survive as a species with greater philosophical significance than the other animals. In short. so it becomes his duty to work in that direction.”
Sir Francis Galton This is a book about the meaning of life. intelligence and our place in the universe. “Eugenicists” argue that we must accept our place within the physical world – as biological creatures. man may do providently.

24
Genetic Interventionism | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
. many of the readers will share the same values. we should be able to agree on the right to disagree.24
Genetic Interventionism
“Eugenics” movement and to the opponents of the “Eugenics” movement. Hopefully. If nothing else. and fears as I. hopes.

I ask for the understanding of the reader when presenting areas which might seem disparate. values. and we must assume that future discoveries in the field of genetics will give us even more capabilities that we can barely imagine now. The Genie of the Enlightenment cannot be squeezed back into the bottle of ignorance. I will here attempt to tie together a number of fields in a “syncretic” approach. or cells asleep…
Edgar Lee Masters. but any serious. wide-ranging worldview is necessarily “eclectic”. “Columbus Cheney. but is not limited to science. The prospect of holding in one’s hand in a few years time the complete human blueprint of an individual genome is awe-inspiring.What Exactly Is “Eugenics” ?
25
What Exactly Is “Eugenics” ?
This weeping willow! Why do you not plant a few? For the millions of children not yet born.
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | What Exactly Is “Eugenics” ?
25
. Humankind has entered into the first stages of a revolution in the general understanding of genetic mechanisms. new biotechnologies and scientific explanations of areas of human health and behavior previously viewed through a moral prism. and emotions.” in “Spring River Anthology” Fraught with history. as well as for us? Are they not non-existent. the “Eugenics” movement sees itself as based on science.

ask ourselves as a species a series of much more profound questions. they argue we may well wonder whether or not we will ever reach the “Promised Land”. Like Martin Luther King. germ-line genetic engineering. if not utopia then at the very least something closer to utopia than we have now. and that they inherit more of our good qualities. We will have to rather. Perhaps there is no final goal. and the “cloning ” of genetically identical children from cultured cells will all become possible within the next ten to fifty years. just the search process. or “How we all manage to survive as a species?” Proponents of “Eugenics” see their cause as part of the struggle for human rights – the rights of people who will come after us. such as: “What do we do next?. to do our best to ensure that they will be born better people than we are.
26
What Exactly Is “Eugenics” ? | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
. and “How will we achieve. but we owe it to our children to begin the journey.26
What Exactly Is “Eugenics” ?
The selection of embryos for desirable genes. and fewer of our flaws. Disagreements on what is attributable to “nature” and what is attributable to “nurture” will seem to be a quaint discussion fairly pretty soon down the line.

To ensure that such services are available to all on a nondiscriminatory basis. sterilization. those that wish to stimulate their birth rates) already engage in moderate forms of “Positive Eugenics”. targeted demographic analyses. “Positive Eugenics” refers to approaches intended to raise fertility among the genetically advantaged. quite simply. and “Cloning ”. “Pro-natalist” countries (that is. is aimed at lowering fertility among the genetically disadvantaged and is largely encompassed under the rubric of “family planning” and “genetic counseling”. after all. egg transplants.What Exactly Is “Eugenics” ? The Continuity of Humankind
27
Once the continuity of humankind with the rest of the animal kingdom was established. Five of the first six presidents of the American Society of Human Genetics [ASHG] were also members of the board of directors of the “Eugenics” Society. “Negative Eugenics”. in vitro fertilization. Historically. it is advocated that. not the reverse. applied human genetics. at a minimum. and other methods of “family planning”. “Eugenics” is. invigorated attempts to improve the human genome became inevitable. on the other hand. modern genetics has become an offshoot of the “Eugenics” movement.
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | What Exactly Is “Eugenics” ? 27
. persons with low income receive such services on a free basis. These include financial and political stimuli. This includes abortions.

consists of active intervention in the germ-line [sperm and egg] of animals without necessarily encouraging or discouraging reproduction of advantaged or disadvantaged individuals.28
What Exactly Is “Eugenics” ?
“Genetic Engineering”.
28
What Exactly Is “Eugenics” ? | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
. which was unknown to early “Eugenicists”.
It is currently supposed that eventually “Genetic Engineering” will allow people to have their own biological children without passing on their most problematic genes.

the frivolous word. not wanting.”
Walt Whitman. The cheating look. (Carolus linnaeus) lumps together the totality of modern human populations together as one species named “Homo sapiens”. and any discussion of sub-species or races is regarded with suspicion and hostility. or Europeans. Australian Aborigines. hates. Refusals. laziness…none of these wanting. meanness. Eskimos. In the case of modern human populations. are thus included in a single species. the snake. the adulterous wish… [also]. The system of bi-nomial nomenclature established in the eighteenth century termed (Carolus linnaeus) by the Swedish botanist Karl von Linné was designed to map the relationships among all living things (at least on our planet). Japanese. “Crossing Brooklyn Ferry” The question of where to draw the line between closely related species and sub-species can be resolved differently by different observers. demarcation lines are hotly contested.Science
29
Science
Previous Evolution
“The wolf. postponements. whether Bushmen. where scientists tend to pursue conflicting social-political agendas.
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | Science
29
. the hog…not wanting in me. All humans alive today.

000 years ago. the assertion had been triggered by political events – in this case the promulgation of anti-Jewish pronouncements proliferated by Adolph Hitler. Accordingly we now have a single “modern man” and he comes in many different colors. roughly 100. “ethnoses”. and then proceeded to wipe out competing hominids wherever he and she came into contact with the resident sub-specie ―“replacement” theory).30
Science
Issued in response to a statement by the rightist French politician “Jean-Marie Le Pen” on racial inequality. and the destruction of Germany and Hitler’s madness. the German Fuehrer and Political Leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party [NAZI] during the years leading up to the end of World War II. Scientists now generally agree that modern human populations had their origins in Africa. but for that matter.000-200. sizes. a 1997 statement signed by a group of prominent biologists denied the very existence of race in human populations. shapes and [IQ]. as well. Actually. the denial of race had first been made by the “Eugenicist ” “Sir Julian Huxley” in 1935. humans and chimpanzees share 99% of their non-duplicative DNA. Again. but there is considerable disagreement as to whether current inter-group differences are explained by evolution dating back a million years to Homo erectus ―“multi-regionalism”‖ or whether “Homo sapiens” showed up as a relatively late arrival. creeds. It is true that modern genetic studies have shown remarkable similarity among all humans.
30
Science | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
.

the family trees of the animals named “cheetah” and “horse” provide useful contrasting models. Ultimately. with considerable diversity both within and between our “races”. Scholar Crucial is the realization that in the world of genetics. by contrast.”
Seymour Itzkoff. Here. genetics is more like a game of chess. We humans are more like “horses” than “cheetahs”. display tremendous variance as a result of independent taming and breeding in different parts of the world. in which the multi-regionalists have been accused of making a case for fundamental biological differences that amounts to racism. than it is like bridge.Science
31
The degree to which earlier hominid species interbred remains in the area of speculation.
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | Science
31
. is what we are dealing with: “a will to believe that [which] is reminiscent of the
seduction of intellectuals with abstract ideological models in politics and social thought. Genetic studies have demonstrated that today’s cheetahs display so little diversity that their ancestors must at one time have come through such a narrow bottleneck that only a few individuals were able to perpetuate the species by inbreeding. in the words of the scholar Seymour Itzkoff. where success is determined largely by the player’s ability to remember which cards were played earlier. “nontrivial changes” can take place on a relatively “short” period of time scale. For example. where the development of a position is of strictly historical interest and plays no role in determining the game’s outcome. Horses.

but where we are heading is quite another. In addition. opens the possibility of intervening in human evolution to guide it and even to search for new horizons. the émigrés may have interbred with other hominid species both in Africa and with those that had arrived still earlier. Even the “replacement ” school of thought concedes that the human species developed for at least some five to eight thousand generations outside of Africa under radically differing conditions of selection. regardless of how present variabilities may have came about.
32
Science | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
.32
Science
The variability so obvious in human populations. even on an intra-group basis. Where we came from is a fascinating question. by comparison. These factors. combined with the professional specialization of modern society and selective mating. represent the chief sources of intra-species variance in “Homo sapiens”. and the tiny populations who have wandered out of Africa may well have reflected at least part of this diversity. African populations display far greater genetic diversity than do other human “races”. Such a sequence of generations is sufficient to produce significant differences in the various sub-populations of “Homo sapiens”. Since human populations have had a far longer time to evolve in Africa than outside the mother continent. can achieve significant changes in just a few generations. still greater diversity would have to be postulated on the basis of the biological diversity that must have been in evidence at the time the various populations left Africa. Animal breeders. Moreover.

“we are no less than its consciousness”.
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | Science
33
. Modern-day genetic boundaries have become more and more blurred due to long-range migrations and the inter-breeding of historically isolated populations.Science
33
If “Homo sapiens” has been around for perhaps 100. As the “mythologist” Joseph Campbell put it.000 years or more. that we are not only part of the planet’s ecology. then our future existence may be considerably more “ephemeral”. but as the totality of living and future people over the entire lifespan of this community. but its custodians as well. The renowned geneticist James V. for all but the last 10. And when chance fluctuations of gene frequencies favored one small group over others. Evolution progressed in these populations because the healthiest. that is. Humanity is thus a society with a beginning and evidently an end and is viewed here. this group would expand and exterminate its neighbors in due course. strongest. These were small. isolated populations which practiced polygamy and incest. not just as all people alive at any given moment. Neel studied the society and genetic makeup of the Yanomama people of southern Venezuela and northern Brazil and persuasively argued that the structure of their society was typical of human populations during the period when people still lived exclusively in bands.000 years. “Eugenicists” reason that our moral obligations are to all of them. and brightest were most likely to survive and reproduce.

well founded in history. But. perhaps. History clearly demonstrates that social harmony is especially difficult to achieve in the face of diversity. Racism is now being defined both as: o o group discrimination and “hatred”. In the United States. unfortunately. less prone to sudden. The greatest historical crimes have all been instances of “group-on-group” violence. is now attempting to achieve racial equity. the two topics are really quite different. At the same time. And. and indeed may never be total. which renounced the monstrous crime of slavery in the 19th century only to retain blatantly patent racial. whether religious. the fear of racial conflict is and will undoubtedly remain both large and. the issue has become blurred. linguistic. but the ever-increasing out-breeding of human populations is reducing human diversity while at the same time creating large populations that are. or ethnic. color.
34
Science | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
. when two or more “ethnoses” are clearly distinguishable from one another. creed and sex discrimination for a century still further. the situation is fraught with even greater stress. and a discussion of inter-group differences
In reality. albeit not unrelated.34
Science
“Panmixia” may still be a long way off. major genetic fluctuations.

“Strong Beer” Since [IQ] testing was first initiated in the early part of the twentieth century. strongly…”
Robert Graves.
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | Science
35
. each group still contains a vast pool of talented individuals possessing enough diverse gene expression to draw upon for future parenting of future generations. not a moral question. they are however. irrelevant in the most fundamental fashion. it has been utilized intensively by the US army both to select recruits and to determine the areas in which they might best be employed. the reality is that even on an “intra-group” basis we ought to be less than pleased with ourselves. Brown beer. Even if the desired breeding resource proves to be distributed differently in some sub-populations than in others. We should all be able to agree that inter-group differences are a scientific.
Testing
“A sure test. an easy test… Those that drink beer are the best. Regardless of the magnitude of such inter-group differences no matter how statistically slight or broad.Science
35
Society’s elites have decided that studies of inter-group differences are too volatile to permit such studies to be widely discussed and have falsely presented “inter-group” studies as claiming total separation of group qualities rather than the scientific relative statistical frequency of specific characteristics. As far as the “Eugenics” argument is concerned.

the Stearns. To approach this question we must first make clear the distinction between “genotype and phenotype”. Certainly early [IQ] tests contained questions that elicit embarrassed smiles among today’s testers. Such persons performed badly on the test.36
Science
Proponents of the “egalitarian” grain have delighted in attacking century-old science and then applying their conclusions wholesale to modern science.
36
Science | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
. the massive expansion of educational systems throughout the world in the twentieth century has helped people not only to acquire specific facts. For example. the Lozier. or soap? While such questions might have had some limited validity when addressed to young people who had grown up in America. but also to use their minds more efficiently. “phenotype” is realized potential. are equally flawed and thus totally invalid. was the Knight engine used in the Packard. Hopefully. But. “Genotype” is genetic potential. or the Pierce Arrow? Or does Velvet Joe appear in advertisements of tooth powder. they were obviously inappropriate for people who had recently immigrated to the United States and barely spoke English. dry goods. the fear is that “dysgenic” fertility patterns inherent in modern society have created a population with less innate ability than that of its predecessors. tobacco. but it does not automatically follow that modern tests. which have been worked on assiduously by thousands of psychologists.

one must distinguish between a conceptual variable and its operational definition. is not necessarily the same thing as “raw intelligence”. “[IQ] is what [IQ] tests measure. then the “pygmies” would obviously enjoy a height “increase” over time due to the positive correlation between nutrition and height. Psychologist [IQ] however. [IQ] is simply one possible measure of “phenotype”. That is an example of “phenotype ”.” Edwin Boring. statistics show a constantly rising mean height in most of the world. were to be given excellent food. and there would be no “soft” or “Lamarckian” carry-over to their children. who have a history of retaining “short statures” [for example]. Therefore. “Genotypes” do set the limits of expression.Science
37
For example. but improved nutrition (and. and the “massai” then would experience a height “decrease”. But. If a group of “pygmies”. nor is ‗IQ] the same as [EQ] or “emotional quotient”. who have a history of retaining “tall statures” were to be distributed low-quality nourishment. the “pygmies” would not become taller than the “massai”. The cause is obviously not altered genes. meat laced with hormones…ok). and an alternative group of “massai” tribesmen. perhaps. Still.
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | Science
37
. As the psychologist Edwin Boring once quipped in a debate with the columnist Walter Lippman.

38
Science
Some estimates of “Genotypic ” [IQ] decline are in the range of 1 to 4 points per generation. may be more easily realizable than previously believed.
38
Science | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
. is a “phenotypic ” improvement that has overridden basic “Genotypic ” deterioration. From 1932 to 1978. the mean [IQ] has risen 13.
SAT Scores
The SAT I is intended as an aptitude test. if Flynn is correct.8 points – nearly one standard deviation over the course of 46 years since widespread testing began. the SAT V (verbal) and the SAT M (math). This is potentially a very encouraging result. each time raising the bar. It indicates that [IQ] differences may prove to be relatively more malleable than was previously thought. On the other hand. and the “egalitarian” ideal. Such tests as the Stanford-Binet and the Wechsler regularly measure subjects and establish new mean scores and standard deviations. When the norms are held constant. which measures knowledge in specific subjects. as opposed to the SAT II. which lies at the heart of the “Eugenic” cause. The SAT I consists of two parts. What evidently has happened. but the New Zealand political scientist James R. we still can only surmise the constraints laid upon “phenotype ” by “Genotype ”. Flynn has produced a seminal study claiming that [IQ] scores have actually been steadily increasing. testers steadily reset norms.

the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). and Ralph Nader’s followers adamantly opposed them. Math scores rise by roughly 30 points after 40 hours of coaching. But continued improvement of even 50% in scores is not achieved by putting in even six times that number of hours.Science
39
Flynn goes on to point out that. a powerful coalition of the National Education Association (NED).” At the same time. for example. The coalition had many influential supporters in government and the press. but improvements are subject to a law of diminishing returns. Dan Rather. an opposite trend was noted in SAT verbal scores. In 1979. simultaneous with the abovementioned [IQ] gains. in a 1975 CBS news special titled “The [IQ] Myth” declared that not only were [IQ] tests relatively useless as measures of intelligence [IQ].
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | Science
39
. and verbal by about 20. SAT scores can be raised by coaching. the Gallup Organization asked a representative sample of Americans what they thought of standardized tests. but that [IQ] tests were biased as well. Testing has generally enjoyed broad public support. Eighty-one percent responded that they were “very useful” or “somewhat useful.

and verbal abilities.
“g-loading”
“Lord. Former CBS news anchor But. and thus it is not surprising that the American Jewish Committee (AJC).
40
Science | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
. that I may know how frail I am. and the American Jewish Congress (AJC) have all filed amicus briefs with the Supreme Court in opposition to Affirmative Action programs. “multiple intelligences”? Any scientific discussion of “unitary intelligence” is fraught with political significance for it can be interpreted as providing the measure of a person’s overall worth or ranking. beginning with Charles Spearman in the early twentieth century. make me to know mine end. have pointed out the positive correlation between spatial. Verse 4] Does such a thing as “general intelligence” defined by the variable ―“g”‖ exist. An [IQ] score is essentially a numerical expression of the defined variable ―“g”‖. and the measure of my days.40
Science
The former CBS anchor concluded. the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). Jewish scholars invariably come off well in testing. or does each individual possess a disparate collection of unrelated abilities – that is.” Dan Rather. Proponents of “general intelligence”.”
[Psalm xxxix. numerical. “For it is economic class that marks the main dividing line in aggregate [IQ] scores. and what it is. this coalition did not have the general support of one group that is normally allied with it on many other issues.

and steal inglorious to the silent grave…”
Sir William Jones. When “specialized” aptitude tests were administered to a group of students in place of “global” measures of intelligence. but who may be accomplished musicians or sculptors.
[IQ] Decline
“Tis folly to decline. It all depends on the observer’s point of view. the question is like the proverbial glass which is either half-empty or half-full. more than half of them scored in the top 10% on a specific ability. or can easily recount weather conditions on a randomly selected day in the eighteenth century.
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | Science 41
. And. In many ways. we need not limit ourselves to the exceptional. can even add a series of numbers with no less precision than a calculator. “An Ode: In Imitation of Alcaeus” How can we best protect the interests of still unborn generations? This is extremely difficult in a world where many regard children as an ordinary commodity.Science
41
On the other hand. there is no denying the existence of idiotsavants – people who have difficulty in coping with even the most elementary everyday tasks. hyperdevelopment of certain abilities may even necessarily come at the expense of others. How then do we compare or evaluate disparate abilities? The significance of “g-loading” may well be exaggerated – or even a non sequitur. Given the limited physical space occupied by the brain.

The first group will effectively have 50% more children than the other group even if the (TFR) is identical. even denying them abortions when they themselves request them? Whereas girls in countries with developed welfare programs can choose to escape school by becoming pregnant.42
Science
The so-called “demographic transition” in which people in advanced societies choose to have fewer children.S.
42 Science | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
. or what have you. While “Total Fertility Rates” ―TFR‖ or the number of children a woman has in her lifetime represent an important yardstick in measuring fertility patterns. Obviously. an early 2001 study showed that fully one-third of American women earning more than $55. is described by economists and demographers in all manner of curves. in one of which women have their children at the average age of 20 and the other at the average age of 30. couples. Imagine two groups. establishing the cost of one child as the equivalent of “X” number of automobiles. “delayed” fertility actually turns out to be “cancelled” fertility) While we remunerate young women of lesser ability on the basis of how many children they bear. the more offspring she can bear. and charts. graphs. the earlier a woman begins having children. thus reducing their fertility? (By the way. What are the consequences for the gene pool of selecting out young women of ability to pursue education and careers. if they find themselves unable to cope with an academic program. televisions.000 a year are childless at age 40 and are likely to live out their lives without ever giving birth. in expanding populations“generational length” also plays a role. statistics show that for 20% of U.

Science
43
In the New York Longitudinal Study of Youth. The creature that sees him or herself as molded in the image of God has used his or her improved technology to do vastly greater violence. who are dependent on receiving the service on a subsidized or free basis. anyone who interferes with achieving utopia in our time can simply be eliminated and replaced by the next generation. women in the bottom 5% of intelligence (read: [IQ] scores) had their first baby more than seven years earlier than women in the top 5%. particularly when the service is readily available to higher [IQ] groups. China. but also to himself. In instances of violent civil conflict. Another significant “dysgenic” factor is war. War as a destructive mechanism of “natural selection” became a frequently discussed topic when the flower of Europe’s youth marched off to die en masse in the trenches of World War I. the conflict of World War I which introduced [IQ] testing to select out young men of ability more accurately for use as “cannon fodder”. for example. Abortion is a significant weapon in terms of the “Eugenics” argument to the degree that it affects selection. not the “hereditarians”. or Cambodia. be it in Russia.
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | Science
43
. There is a sad consistency to their logic that goes like this: If everyone is the same. who can easily pay for it. force is targeted most heavily at the real and potential opposition. It was. And. who have been the least squeamish about murder and exile. not only to his environment. after all. it has been the “egalitarians”. but is denied to lower [IQ] groups.

the targets of destruction. Brahms. Beethoven. Eliminate these geniuses and the average ability level of the next generations will not be altered perceptibly. but thereafter a correspondingly disastrous reduction in the number of persons with exceptionally high [IQ] scores is discovered. more frequently than not. This fact demonstrates the hypothesis that contributions by outstanding individuals to culture. are persons of ability. Just imagine what the history of music would be like without just a handful of the great composers – Bach. a society in which the intellectual leadership is significantly reduced is truly an impoverished society – at least relative to its original state.” Statistical analysis demonstrates that in fact. Stravinsky and Mendelssohn. The same sort of “short list” could be made up of physicists. The historian Nathaniel Weyl christened the phenomenon “aristocide. mathematicians and philosophers.
44 Science | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
.44
Science
Since opposition by definition involves thought and ideological dedication. science. The lesson to be drawn upon is that the turbulence and magnitude of social upheaval do not have a positive corresponding relationship to the genetic consequences of such upheaval. and the general quality of life is indeed disproportionate to their numbers. Even with a relatively stable intelligence quotient [IQ] mean. Mozart. but how impoverished our world would be! The consequences of such a process are obviously alarming. the process of war produces a relatively modest lowering of the general population intelligence quotient [IQ] mean [read: average].

one could compare this document to a roadmap rather than to an automobile repair manual. the vast majority of mutations end up reducing the number of offspring.Genetic Illnesses
45
Genetic Illnesses
There is no such thing as immutability in biological stocks. Nevertheless. It is not intended as a discussion of the complexities of human genetic disease. and the new gene then becomes more widespread in the population as a whole. but a few particularly important nuts and bolts do need to be mentioned. We have made such advances in medicine that natural selection has been reduced almost to zero. By way of analogy.
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | Genetic Illnesses
45
. This is the classic balance of mutation and death which is called “natural selection ” and is accepted by biologists as decisive in all species. Already 98% of Americans survive at least to their twenty-fifth birthday. for with each new generation a species inherits new genetic information in the form of mutations.
Take Aim
This book aims to pose certain broad philosophical questions about the values and goals of human civilization and the path which humankind will follow in consciously choosing either to pursue or to reject artificial selection. On rare occasions a mutation can improve the individual’s survivability chances.

46
Genetic Illnesses | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
. rather than the “vertically transmitted” genetic diseases of past and future generations. or a hospital to collect a fee from people who have yet to be born. very difficult for a doctor. Thus. after all. It is. if we speak about illness today. the emphasis is on “horizontally transmitted” infectious diseases among the current generation of humans. Medicine is a business that depends on paying clients. or a pharmaceutical company.46
Genetic Illnesses
Medicine is intended largely to benefit its creators – the currently living. but who are eager to pay – are the ones who are hurting now. and the most motivated clients – those who not only can.

3.
“Of the 3 to 4 percent of newborns with birth defects. regarding the “blind” genetic risk factors of birth:
“Epidemiological surveys suggest that approximately 1 percent of all newborns have a single gene defect and that 0. and 40 to 50 percent of spontaneous abortions involve chromosomally abnormal embryos.Genetic Illnesses The Facts
47
The Encyclopedia Britannica succinctly presents some of the salient facts related to the approx.”
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | Genetic Illnesses
47
.” “About 40 percent of all infant mortality is due to genetic disease. the list is rapidly expanding on a daily basis) Here are the facts. (By the way. surveys indicate that at least half suffer a major genetic contribution. as we currently know them to be. or sex chromosome linked disorders that have already been catalogued by experts in the field.5 percent have gross chromosomal anomalies severe enough to produce serious physical defects and mental retardation.500 auto-somal dominant and auto-somal recessive.”
Further.” “30 percent of pediatric and 10 percent of adult patients require hospital admission because of genetic disorders.” “A minimum of 5 percent of all conceptions that evidence themselves have gross chromosomal anomalies.

Thus. in fact. a much larger number of multi-factorial illnesses exist in which certain genes create a disposition toward specific illnesses. extremely rare. most of the genetics variants that cause diseases are both recessive and are. However. the number of carriers greatly outnumbers the number of persons actually affected. it has been shown. diabetes. and hypertension. undesirable when expressed. and about 7 percent of all births show some mental or physical defect. about 20 percent of all stillbirths and infant deaths are associated with severe anomalies. most of which appear to be neutral. and the non-reproduction of actively ill individuals could achieve only an extremely slow reduction of the disease in subsequent generations.48
Genetic Illnesses
“Medical investigators estimate that genetic defects – albeit often minor – are present in 10 percent of all adults….”
It gets scarier
Spontaneous mutation rates or genetic “typos” have been estimated at 200 per person. Early “Eugenicists” had the naïve notion that simply to prevent persons suffering from genetic illness from having children was sufficient to produce a healthier population with each generation. Aside from genetic anomalies which are necessary and sufficient to cause a specific illness. for example. most cancers. therefore.
48
Genetic Illnesses | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
. But. with their effects becoming cumulative when passed on to the next generation.” “And. an unknown percentage of such genetic “typos” are.

it will be possible to make changes within the germ cells themselves (those cells or gametes involved in reproduction). a natural spontaneous mutation rate would remain. Genetic engineering techniques on a wide spectrum of “phenotypes” [not simply the “intelligence quotient” phenotype‘ or [IQ] are advancing today very rapidly. Such “germ-line therapy” does not fit into either the positive or the negative itineration of the definition of “Eugenics”.
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | Genetic Illnesses 49
. and not just in the somatic cells (those not involved in reproduction). Known as “pre-implantation genetic diagnostics” embryo screening allows the genetic parents of the new born full latitude to pre-select a single or multiple healthy embryo(s) for implantation into the carrying mother’s womb. Rather. Even then. This is a “eugenic” technique that is already being implemented on a voluntary basis. which would also have to be countered on a never-ending basis.01 and 900 generations under conditions of random mating to achieve a reduction to the level of one in a million (6th sigma). and then perform embryo screening. both itinerations amount to encouraging or discouraging an individual from entering into the sequence of generations.Genetic Illnesses
49
This means that if an undesirable trait occurred in 1% of the population it would take 90 generations to reduce the incidence to 0. Nevertheless. It is already possible for carriers of genetic diseases to conceive children in vitro. such therapy is unquestionably “Eugenics”. In the not so distant future.

A prospective parent. “genetic counseling” and treatment are on occasion helping those alive today at the expense of future generations. but the puzzle of genes and their interactions is only beginning to be solved.
50
Genetic Illnesses | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
. what reason could there be for forbidding it?”
Fritz Mann. the tendency is to speak more in terms of a moratorium of this new therapy. Meanwhile. but for all his descendants. “Geneticists” are already altering the germ lines of plants and animals. Bio-ethicist Such an achievement will represent a genetic breakthrough. there exists no ethical justification for not influencing the germ line. can selectively abort fetuses in which the gene will be actively expressed. so that human germ-line therapy is only a question of time. not only for its bearer. If one day a cure is discovered for healing a hereditary disease in this fashion. the general attitude was one of absolute condemnation.50
Genetic Illnesses
When the possibility first arose. Nevertheless. The bio-ethicist Fritz Mann at the Free University of Brussels writes:
“Aside from religious grounds. who knows that he or she is the carrier of a recessive gene that can cause illness in subsequent generations. Today. and transgenic mice with cancer resistance have been re-produced already.

can parental responsibility be sloughed off or denied? Marcus Pembrey. because to make that the objective of the service would be to by-pass the mother’s choice in the matter of selective abortion… The view that reduction in the birth incidence of genetic disorders is not an appropriate objective for genetic service is finding wide acceptance. like a poem or an object. Professor This is the so-called “personal service model” of “genetic counseling” which subordinates children’s well-being to that of their parents. a professor at the Institute of Child Health at the University of London. but two-thirds of the un-aborted and un-affected children will be carriers. Philosopher Still.
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | Genetic Illnesses
51
.”
Emmanuel Lévinas. in discussing “genetic counseling” argues that:
“The aim should not be to reduce the birth incidence of genetic diseases. the immediate children of the union are free from the illness. The question is whether parents have a moral right to bring children into the world that will be disadvantaged by their heredity.”
Marcus Pembrey. To quote the philosopher Emmanuel Lévinas:
“My son is not simply my creation.Genetic Illnesses
51
Thus. He is not my property.

52
Genetic Illnesses | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
. the non-religious objectors will have considerably less wind in their sails. by certain religious groups. When we will have achieved a much better understanding of human genetics. however. for this will be an act committed with full knowledge and intent. the ignorance argument will have less and less weight in the future. Whereas we may have previously lacked the knowledge to reduce genetic illnesses.52
Genetic Illnesses
Such a view could well be challenged in the courts. even on a class-action basis. and one occasionally comes across newspaper articles describing a family whose child has died for lack of medical treatment. There will also be non-religious objections by people who are wary of making mistakes. that such therapy is “unnatural” and that we have no right to “play God. ―“Wrongful life” legal suits claim successful “wrongful death” legal suits as legal precedent. Germ-line interventions will encounter resistance from people who feel. The parental appeasement posture will not be comparable to the Thalidomide baby scandal of 1957-1961.” Even conventional care is rejected. for example.‖ Or. Indeed errors are a real possibility. some on religious grounds. perhaps in “wrongful life” legal suits which first appeared in the United States in 1964.

In the words of a researcher at Ben-Gurion University. Head of Genetics. Jerusalem. “Eugenic” thinking is alive and well ‗in Israel‘ today. Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center.” “Israel. human disorders have a genetic background. head of Genetics at the Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center in Jerusalem commented:
“We now know that most. do carry a dozen recessive genetic diseases with relatively high frequency throughout their genomes.”
Gideon Bach. The best known is an auto-somal disorder christened TaySachs after its description in 1881 by the British ophthalmologist Warren Tay.Genetic Counseling
53
Genetic Counseling
Israel has been a forerunner in “genetic counseling”.
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | Genetic Counseling
53
. if not all. It is caused by the hereditary lack of a crucial enzyme that normally breaks down fatty waste products found in the brain. and we are acquiring the tools to study. treat and eventually prevent or cure such disorders….” Gideon Bach. Israel The majority of Ashkenazi Jews. who until some forty years ago largely intermarried. with many inbred ethnic groups. has proven a rich human laboratory for [probing] genetic detectives because it is far easier to trace genetic anomalies in inbred groups than it is with homogeneous pedigrees.

54
Genetic Counseling
If both parents are carriers of the gene. and unresponsive to outside stimuli. A baby suffering from the disease at first appears normal. In 1985.
54
Genetic Counseling | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
. Rabbi Joseph Eckstein. but if both test positive they are counseled to choose a different marriage partner. the child has a 25% chance of suffering from the disease. Orthodox Jewish students are tested to determine if they carry the gene. If only one prospective parent is a carrier they are not advised against marriage. quoting the Bible and the Talmud founded the international genetic testing program called Dor yeshorim ―“generation of the righteous”‖ with the goal of preventing further children from being born with the illness. mentally retarded. Israel has one of the highest screening rates in the world. One in 27 Jews in the United States carries the gene. Death results by age five. testing well over ten thousand people a year. In the program. blind. but becomes hypersensitive to sound after a few months. and a 50% chance of being a carrier. Eventually the child becomes deaf.

”
Adrienne Asch. who believes that all diseases are part of the diversity of the human race. and if this were the case. whatever the endowments they receive in the natural lottery. “Eugenic” practices in the United States are often resisted among representatives of the handi-capped community.
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | Genetic Counseling
55
. Bio-ethicist Much the same position is held by the Canadian ethicist Tom Koch. Bio-ethicist Adrienne Asch writes:
“My moral opposition to prenatal testing and selective abortion flows from the conviction that life with disability is worthwhile and the belief that a just society must appreciate and nurture the lives of all people. and I know that it is my obligation to be acutely aware of my heightened risk factor for the disease.Genetic Counseling
55
The writer Naomi Stone expresses what the general Jewish attitude toward prevention of Tay-Sachs:
“Perhaps the disease can be eradicated entirely from populations where it is concentrated. who could reasonably express qualms?” “I am an Ashkenazi Jew.”
Naomi Stone. Writer
The Handi-capped
Understandably.

goes even further:
“I can say. Canadian Activist
56
Genetic Counseling | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
.56
Genetic Counseling
Helen Henderson. How can anyone who has no experience with disabilities understand that?”
Helen Henderson. that my life has been richer because I have MS. another Canadian active in the movement of handi-capped persons against “Eugenics”. without hesitation.

” “This has to stop. coronary heart disease. which characteristics are worthy enough to be part of society and which are not. PKU. hemophilia. cystic fibrosis. osteoporosis. thalidomide. mental illness. spina bifida. gender. ‗Discrimination‘” The key question is: “How can a society (read: social “Eugenics”) or a person (read: personal “Eugenics”) decide which characteristics are permissible and which ones are not in an offspring or offsprings to be?” “Can a society influence or regulate the decisions of both social and personal Eugenics?” “Is there a rational way to distinguish between Tay-Sachs.”
Signed: Anonymous
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | Genetic Counseling
57
. cerebral palsy. Down’s syndrome. sickle cell anemia. sexual orientation (if a way were ever found to predict it). beta-Thalassemia.Genetic Counseling The Anonymous View
57
Another viewpoint from a scanned “anonymous” internet document reads:
“The underlying issue in “Eugenics” is that someone decides based on stated or unstated values. and obesity?” “A war of characteristics is on. which will disenfranchise many characteristics from the human rights movement and from equality rights. achondroplasia (dwarfism). Alzheimer’s disease.

The geneticist Gerhard Meisenberg responds: “Eugenics” is about reducing the number of
disease-producing genes. It is our duty to ensure that we indeed discriminate against the disease and not against the persons who suffer from them. contrary to the assertions of some activists. Albeit stemming from a legitimate and well-founded fear of discrimination against the persons who suffer from them. not about getting rid of diseased people! And why should the prevention of diseases and disabilities show a lack of appreciation for the sick and disabled? Is polio vaccination a bad thing because it presupposes that we do not appreciate the paralyzed? Above all. the disability-rights argument ignores a simple fact: Surveys have consistently shown that. and obesity – the defense of some of the named horrendous diseases is disconcerting. sexual orientation. dwarfism. To willingly produce an impaired child rather than a healthy one means inflicting unnecessary suffering on the child.”
58
Genetic Counseling | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
.58
Genetic Counseling
While the “anonymous” author does indeed raise thorny questions with regard to certain characteristics – for example. life satisfaction and subjective well-being are impaired for most handicapped people.

As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | Genetic Counseling
59
. “Heritability” scores are mathematical correlations ranging from [1] to [0]. and fetishes that has been erected around human reproduction. while a “Heritability” of [0] indicates that any variation stems from the environment. “Heritability” is the yardstick by which both natural and artificial selection are measured. Geneticist
Scientific Methodology
Any attempt to channel the sexual act requires that society first dismantle the devilish scaffolding of taboos. Given the fundamental continuity of the human animal with the entire biological kingdom in general and with mammals specifically – including such intimately related species as the higher primates – the revolution in developmental and molecular biology is resetting the intellectual climate by conceptualizing human reproduction in accordance with the principles of animal breeding. A “heritability” of [1] means that the trait is determined entirely by genes. neuroses. there would be nothing to select from.”
Gerhard Meisenberg. Genetic selection pre-supposes genetic variation.Genetic Counseling
59
Further:
“The only reason why such an action can be considered acceptable by some is that the child is powerless to resist our machinations and unable to demand legal redress. phobias. Otherwise.

and 35% non-shared environmental influence. assertive. talkative. The “heritability” for height among white European and North American populations of “Homo sapiens” is [0. and flexible. and feedlot gain in beef cattle is [0.60
Genetic Counseling
The “heritability” of economic traits has been intensively studied for farm animals.5 . active.25]. originally creative.36]. extroverted. open to experience. thorough.9]. “Occupational” interests correlate at about [0.86] Using data from twin studies. [0. emotionally stable.2 . yearling body weight in sheep is in the range of [0.5]. inventive. the “heritability” of milk production is [0. “Heritabilities” of social attitudes are even higher: [0.0. neat. systematic. kind. conscientious.54] for “tough-mindedness”. Model-fit analyses suggest about 40% genetic. polite. and [0. imaginative.55]. self-confident. it is the intelligence quotient [IQ] controversy which has attracted the most heated attention.59] for “religious-leisure time” interests. Hypothesis: The “heritability” correlation of [IQ] is [0. 25% shared environmental. For example.0.
60 Genetic Counseling | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
. gregarious. Thomas Bouchard and colleagues at the University of Minnesota have placed the overall “heritability” of personality [p] at about [0. Although the “heritability” of any trait or combination of traits can be measured along this same scale. even-tempered. calm.65] for “radicalism”. pleasant. One study of mono-zygotic (identical) and di-zygotic (fraternal) twins showed that mono-zygotic twins showed a significantly higher correlation than di-zygotic twins for being frank. agreeable. sophisticated.59]. refined.

76] for identical twins reared separately and [0.87] for those reared together.4]. In another study of adopted children. Now. Weinberg.8] being the ceiling for high estimates. including Bouchard’s study of 8.::: twin pairs. with [0. In 1966 he reported an [IQ] correlation of [0. was post-humously accused of having falsified his data. and Burt’s findings have been replicated repeatedly.87] The prominent English psychologist Cyril Burt located a number of identical twins who had been raised separately. however. When Burt.77] among 53 pairs of identical twins whom he had studied. who died in 1971. Natural selection depends not only on genetic variation and expression.
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | Genetic Counseling
61
. the adoptees’ [IQ] scores correlated significantly more positively with those of their biological than with those of their adoptive parents. conducted by Sandra Scarr [] and Richard A. which came up with a correlation of [0.Genetic Counseling
61
Low estimates of [IQ] “heritability” in human populations are generally on the order of [0. How to disentangle nature from nurture? The correlation between the [IQ] scores of the same person taking the same test a second time can serve as a benchmark: Hypothesis: The “heritability” correlation of [IQ] is [0. but also on epi-genomic environmental variation. the purported scandal made for major news. a great deal more research has been done on the topic. also at the University of Minnesota.

sperm can be frozen for long-term storage and later use.3 million granddaughters! Plus. and “transfer of genetic material” are used. “super-ovulation”. by employing modern techniques a bull can theoretically be made to produce 200.000 breeding units of semen per year.” This. The use of artificial insemination renders “eugenic” measures applied to males far more effective than to females. the faster the rate of evolution. low genetic variance or low “heritability” impedes selection.
62
Genetic Counseling | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
. For example. is still the chief methodology of animal
breeders. people have been able to pursue artificial selection successfully in plants and animals by simply breeding the most desirable individuals with each other under the principle “like breeds like. the same is also true of eggs. by the way. If there is no shortage of premium-quality sperm. Techniques such as “frozen semen”. the greater the intensity of selection – that is. “separation of male. without any knowledge of Darwin’s theory of evolution. modern genetic tools are employed to fill the void and increase the probability of success. “embryo storage and transfer”.62
Genetic Counseling
The greater the range of the two forms of variation. One bull already has 2.
When.and female-producing sperm”. “in vitro fertilization methods”. For millennia now. however.

some fish and lizard species reproduce only asexually. is in the process also producing “clones ”. In 1993 US researchers experimentally “cloned ” a human being as a possible treatment for infertility. Any plant that can grow from a cutting. remember this: “Cloning ” is common throughout nature.Genetic Counseling
63
Only a tiny percentage of eggs are ever fertilized. The first animal “clones” were produced in the late 1950s. The resultant child who is born is the genome donor’s identical twin.
In vitro fertilization. During the “cloning ” process. During laboratory “cloning ” ―“nuclear transfer”‖. In fact.
“Cloning ” is a still newer technique that can be used to transfer [IQ] phenotypic expression. And.” just as is already done in cases of in vitro fertilization. a genetically identical copy of a biological organism is produced by asexual means.
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | Genetic Counseling
63
. or animal tissue that can reproduce itself in a Petri dish. would make it possible to achieve a revolution in population quality without creating a quantitative bottleneck. but the experiment raised a storm of criticism. and that egg is then grown into an embryo and implanted in the womb of a “birth mother. the genetic code of an individual organism is inserted into an egg that has been stripped down of its own nucleus. with resulting “selected” embryos implanted in a womb other than that of the original mother.

cows. or even artificial.) As a device to combat infertility. could be implanted in a womb that might be human. “Cloned ” embryos. goats.
For example. The real issue. and mice. The current debate on “cloning ” is focused on “therapeutic
cloning ”. I refer here to the latter as “eugenic cloning ”. animal. and then transplant that muscle back into the same patient without fear of rejection. however. and 2. it may be possible in the future to clone cells from a person suffering from cardiac insufficiency. deer. Other mammals already “cloned ” by scientists include horses.
64
Genetic Counseling | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
.
Why “Clone” ?
“Reproductive cloning ” can be pursued for two reasons: 1. pigs. dogs. rats. rabbits. as well as embryos produced during in vitro fertilization. yet are in fact genetically. develop those replacement cells into heart muscle. is “reproductive cloning” – conceiving babies who will be brought to term and who will enter the general population as independent persons.64
Genetic Counseling
The “cloning ” of the sheep “Dolly” did not take place until 1996. cats. identical “twins” or “clones ” of the genome donor.) As a device to enrich the [IQ] depleted human gene pool.

Genetic Counseling

65

In reaction to this direction, Leon Kass, chief of George W. Bush’s Bio-ethics Council wrote: “We can see all too clearly where the train is headed, and we do not like the destination.” Leon Kass, chief of George W. Bush’s Bio-ethics Council Revealingly, it was Kass, who is an observant conservative Jew, who has also come out against the dissection of cadavers, organ transplantation, in-vitro fertilization, cosmetic surgery, and sexual liberation. Virginia Postrel, editor-at-large of Reason magazine, responded to the views expressed by Kass by commenting that: “This isn’t about the 2:th century. It’s about the 16th [century] !” Virginia Postrel, editor-at-large of Reason Magazine Much of the criticism of “cloning ” stems from a fundamental misunderstanding – that there is intent to produce a race of identical creatures lacking any and all individuality. This is definitely not the case, and no such practice has ever been advocated. Rather, it is the expectation that persons born as the result of a “cloning ” process would then enter into normal sexual relations with the vastly greater population of individuals born as the result of traditional sex, and would then in the process multiply in the traditional fashion, thus increasing the frequency of advantageous genes in the following generations.

As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | Genetic Counseling

65

66

Genetic Counseling

Despite some well-publicized successes, there do still remain a number of difficulties to be worked out, and the probability of failure is still high. For example, “cloned ” animals often have abnormal placentas – a factor that affects size and survival. Part of the problem evidently lies in abnormalities in gene expression. Much of the resistance to “cloning ” does come from religious groups, but such resistance is not limited to the “religious right”. Aside from a fully legitimate fear that we may still not be knowledgeable enough to proceed immediately to “human cloning” the resistance to “cloning ” per se is startlingly reminiscent of the traditional argument against “evolution” – that “evolution” was and still is “an assault on human dignity.” That was precisely the text and heading of an open letter addressed to President George W. Bush in the Washington Times in January, 2002, signed by 29 conservative political and religious leaders. Therefore, in this author’s opinion, the media have waged an energetic campaign against “cloning ”.
The Media v “Cloning ”

We have examples of media bias against “cloning” in the 1976 novel, “The Boys from Brazil”, by Ira Levin, which was made into a film starring James Mason in 1978, and most recently in 2002, with the appearance of Star Wars Part II: Attack of the “Clones”. There is even a “canard” as to whether “human cloning” methods might be “patentable”.
66 Genetic Counseling | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)

Genetic Counseling

67

The New York Times is entirely correct in the opinion of the author, as follows: “Opposition to “reproductive cloning ” is universal in Congress, and if any senator or congressman secretly harbors a more benign view of the procedure, the chance that he or she will express that opinion publicly is absolutely zero.” In 2001, the House of Representatives voted to ban all forms of “Cloning ”, but the Senate resisted a total disallowment. Congress has thus resolved to criminalize “reproductive cloning”, even though Congress’s unanimity in this area is not shared by everyone in the scientific and scholarly community. According to the Wall Street Journal, “Some diplomats said they believe the U.S. stand in the U.N. was primarily intended to score domestic political points with religious conservatives and antiabortion activists.” But, such moods are hardly limited to the United States. On November 6, 2003, by a narrow 80-79 vote, with 15 abstentions, the United Nations barely resolved to delay by two years a vote supported by the United States and the Vatican to outlaw both “therapeutic cloning” and “reproductive cloning”.
“Cloning ” in other countries

A number of other countries support a Belgian proposal to ban “reproductive cloning ” while at the same time permitting “therapeutic cloning ”. Animal breeding methods usually amount to producing a specific type on the basis of very strict characteristics.
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | Genetic Counseling 67

“Eugenicists” argue that even a very significant channeling of motherhood and a far more stringent selection among men would still leave billions of people reproducing. would be aimed at a far more limited reduction in genetic variance. A certain reduction of this variability. in which a rich variety of strains is usually replaced by a few mono-cultures. Human selection. is the mathematical goal. but also is an integral part of what we are and want we may want to be. By comparison.
68
Genetic Counseling | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
. The great diversity that is enjoyed by the species named “Homo sapiens” is not simply a great source of genetic strength. Nothing of the sort would be appropriate for human populations. and natural selection can be even more draconian. all thoroughbred race horses stem from three Middle Eastern stallions. on the other hand.68
Genetic Counseling
The same is true for plant selection. as proposed by proponents of “Eugenics”.

in 19:9 the word “gene” came to be applied to the “Mendelian” factors of heredity.Genetic Counseling Mapping the Human Genome
69
“We have the intestines of chickens to tell the fortunes of war. Mendel’s discoveries. About the same time the Austrian monk Gregor Mendel stumbled onto the secret of creation when he published the results of his controlled pollination of the garden pea. “We have slaves that they might be silent. Even the discovery of the mechanism of fertilization as a union of the nuclei of male and female sex cells was not made until 1875.” “We have stones that we might build. we saw the discovery of certain deeply stained bodies in cell nuclei. And. though published in 1866.” “Why then should we trouble the gods?”
Osip Mandelstam. which were christened “chromosomes”. But.
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | Genetic Counseling 69
. “Nature is the Same Rome…” [] Genetics is a very young science. The theory of evolution by natural selection was not formally advanced until 1859. were ignored for the rest of the century and even banned in the new Soviet Union and her satellite states. In the year 1888. Darwin never learned of them.

and then also monkey) was not achieved until 1934. The amount we don’t know vastly dwarfs what we do know. and as for the double helical structure of DNA. they were largely ignorant of the mechanisms involved. This is all so recent that although early “Eugenicists” had set their goals and methods straight-a-way. its discovery dates back only to 1953. The functions of other DNA sequences are still largely a mystery. or chemical letters. but just how genes and the proteins they produce interact is still poorly understood. Further. The mapping of the human genome is now complete. And. we have learned that at the ends of the chromosomes there are strands called “telomeres”. There appear to be approximately three billion base pairs. it is presently expected that protein-coding genes comprise only 2% of the human genome.000 genes.70
Genetic Counseling
The first in vitro fertilization (rabbit. We do know that some of the proteins produced called “transcription factors” do contain switches that turn genes on and off. whose shortening appears to be related to the aging process. making up the nucleotide sequences that form our 20. The mapping of the human genome is still in an early stage. some of which code directly for proteins.
70
Genetic Counseling | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
.000 to 30.

As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | Genetic Counseling 71
. Political Scientist The bottom line is that with every day we gain greater knowledge and that in the not all that too distant future we will be able to predict. we will still have to determine how these data relate to expression. with a high degree of certainty. University of Massachusetts political scientist Diane Paul [] wrote that just fourteen years earlier. Scholarly opinion is rapidly growing more cognizant of the role of genes in human society.”
Diane Paul. the outlines of which we are only beginning to trace. The sequences are only the parts list to a grand machine. whose only function in our bodies seems to be to replicate themselves. she had labeled as. For the view implicitly disparaged by these labels is once again widely accepted by scientists and the public alike. That usage today would surely be contested.Genetic Counseling
71
We have also discovered “non-functional genomic parasites”. the “genetic load” that we are passing on to our future generations. in 1984. In 1998. An estimated 40-48% of our genome consists of repeat sequences.
“Hereditarians” or “biological determinists” the view that differences in mentality and temperament were substantially influenced by genes… employing these terms then as though their meanings were unproblematic. Even after sequencing the genome.

“altruistic”. III. unsustainable.”
[I Corinthians xiii.Ideology
Essential Conditions
“For we know in part. IV. we can with a fair degree of confidence trace out certain conditions which will always be essential or at the very least desirable. and we prophesy in part. for eventually we will have thoroughly sifted through the earth’s accessible subsoil.
72 Ideology | Hermitage Publishers
. Verse 9] Proponents of “Eugenics” see the movement as an integral component of an environmentalist policy. These four traceable pillars of environmental policy are: I.
The Current State of the Planet
The blessings that we are reaping from the industrial revolution are. A clean. They reason that. We are systematically depleting the planet’s riches. Debates as to how long this or that resource will hold out are trivial in the greater scheme of things. A supply of natural resources. II. and intelligent. bio-diverse environment. and A population which is healthy. to a significant degree. A human population no larger than the planet can comfortably sustain on an indefinite basis. while we cannot predict the distant future.

We embarked upon the industrial revolution only two centuries ago. As for science-fiction fantasies about relocating to other planets. this “trash-the-world” vandalism is unfeasible for billions of people. an enormous number of species have been totally wiped out. they have followed the example of man in replicating his devastation upon the ecosystem. Traditional societies are not capable of inflicting serious damage on the environment – something we cannot say of modern industrial society . We need to husband our precious. Globalization is already delivering devastating blows to the planet’s biodiversity.Ideology
73
The only resources that we can count on over the long run are those which are truly renewable or inexhaustible.
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | Ideology 73
. Of course. while still others have been transported by man to different environments where lacking natural enemies. finite resources to get through this transition in as “chary” a fashion as possible. and we have a huge transition to go through if we do not wish our offspring to return to a hunter-gatherer economy in which there will be precious little left either to hunt or to gather. In the interim. What is the difference if this process is completed sooner or later? The “Eugenicists”’ response is a moral one. it can be argued that the inevitability of resource exhaustion makes it a non-topic.and we already have overwhelmed much of Nature’s ability to heal herself.

In traditional societies. children being the only form of social security around.3 in Japan and Taiwan.8. And. In 2003. while Africa’s was 5. More is better. on the other hand.7.2. represented for their parents an economic good. The national [TFR] had even dropped to 1. and the surest way to maximize consumption (for many the ultimate purpose of life) is at the very least to reduce the number of children. the planet’s population having swollen six-fold over the last 250 years. children are strictly an economic liability. It is still growing by leaps and bounds. Latin America’s [TFR] was 2. The global [TFR] was 2. there are population problems that can overwhelm the planet in a relatively short period. the total fertility rate (TFR) in East Asia was below replacement at 1. Europe’s [TFR] had fallen to 1. In economically developed societies.7. while it has gone so far that it becomes too painful to even read about it in the papers.74
Ideology
As for pollution. and even lower numbers are being reported from Taiwan.4. Canada’s and the United States’ [TFR] were 1.1.
74 Ideology | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
. respectively.5 and 2. In sharp contrast. although more slowly than formerly. much can still be reversed.

and high projections. And. medium. which has a population of 134 million on a land mass roughly the size of the state of Wisconsin. for example. and threatened by rising sea levels in the wake of global warming.
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | Ideology 75
. however. Other countries provide even more rapid growth rates: The Palestinians during the same period of time are predicted to increase their numbers to form a population 3. and this on land where water is already in critical shortage. it is not impossible to envision that before this happens. Demographic predictions are not made with any claim to precision. Bangladesh is projected to increase its population to 255 million by the year 2050. is taking place in the poorest countries. There are low.Ideology
75
The largest population growth. India is projected to add as many people as Europe’s entire population by that time.3 times its current size. While it is hoped that the entire world will eventually pass through demographic transition unscathed. there are questions to which no one has any answers. “What is the long-term carrying capacity of the planet?” for example. Bangladesh. most of which is an alluvial flood plain frequently ravaged by hurricanes. individual countries will undergo horrendous “Malthusian ” collapses.

in the fire of night. you invisible…
D. Where will it end? What new plagues lurk around the corner? Military conflicts could easily result in the deaths of billions of people. A smaller population capable of surviving by the use of current renewable resources will create less stress and make the transition to a new economy more manageable.76
Ideology
“How many lives will be carried off by phenomena that reduce the population not by “decreasing” fertility. thus preventing its genes from being transmitted to the next generation.” 1916 Darwin pointed out that “natural selection” favors behavioral patterns which promote “survivability”. then (it would seem) should lead to the destruction of the animal involved. burnt like a sacrifice.
76 Ideology | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
. “Eugenicists” argue that the wisest approach is to err on the side of caution. Lawrence. Demographic predictions are really no better than stock market predictions. Suicidal behavior. dead beech-leaves. In any case. but by “increasing” mortality?” Already there are projections of a loss of fifty million deaths from AIDS.
Altruism
“You among the dry.“Scent of Irises. H.

weak musculature. no claws.
Human Reproduction
Up until recently. its genes will be transmitted by the queen. In primitive times. We are the products of precisely such an evolutionary process. alien groups would have been viewed not merely as enemies. but as potential food. could the behavior of a honeybee be explained when. it rips out its own intestines together with the stinger and thus perishes? The answer is that survival of the genes. not of the individual. Although the individual bee dies. In all animal species. with easily torn skin. in stinging a perceived threat to the hive. out-of-family “altruism” is the rare exception. People are physically unimpressive animals. Survival requires maximum expenditure of effort. socio-biologists asked. This mode of reproduction is called “haplo-diploidy”. and atrophied canines. opportunistic out-of-clan cannibalism would have improved survival chances. survival of a human individual was problematic. Thus.Ideology
77
How then.
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | Ideology
77
. is crucial. who shares three quarters of the genes of the honeybee.

Therefore. and thus. Most traits are arranged along a continuum. artificial selection could theoretically make it possible to create a social profile skewed toward “diffuse altruism”. the genes involved really didn’t change all that much. But. specialization and cooperation went hand in hand. reduces survivability.
78
Ideology | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
. and “altruism” is no exception. the result would be radically skewed toward “focused altruism”. by definition. As man moved into larger groups (tribes). If a statistical curve were drawn to display “diffuse altruism” at one end and “focused altruism” at the other. toward immediate offspring and then only to a much diminished degree. toward other close relations. and any objective determination of its coordinates (within the animal kingdom) does place the specie dead straight among the “predators” of the globe. The species “Homo sapiens” has a political history that does present an unbroken string of violence. That is to say. The skew was retained toward “focused altruism”. what sort of a society do we really want ? To the degree that “altruism” is determined by our genes.78
Ideology
And. but became less pronounced over time. the act of efforts expended on alien genes called “dispersed or non-focused altruism” does waste effort and time. People learned to “live by the rules” and even to feign “dispersed or non-focused altruism”.

if any. the “Eugenicist ” wishes to create a global civilization that does not set consumption as its primary goal. Further.
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | Ideology
79
. Garrett Hardin once wrote that it is futile to expect people to act against their own self-interest. All this leads to gloomy conclusions.Ideology
79
The difficulty of working toward a better society is that such a process necessarily entails effort and even sacrifice on the part of the currently living.  How to measure it ?  What are the relative contributions of “nature” and “nurture”?  Which genes come into play and in which combinations. Professor of human ecology. are they triggered ?  What is the “heritability” ratio ?
Effective “Eugenic” Approaches
What combinations of positive and negative “eugenic” approaches are likely to prove most effective? As a true environmentalist. bio-ethicist Peter Singer [] defines “reciprocal altruism” as merely a technical term for the concept of “cooperation”. is how to genetically select for “altruism”. The same questions must be answered for “altruism” as for other “phenotypic” traits. and by what transcription factors. who have the power of absolute dictators. of course. The big question.

No philosophy of life can logically justify its basic premises. and even contact with beings from other planets. These are givens. By contrast the “Eugenics” movement of today advocates a “universalism” that encompasses all humanity while recognizing the continuity of our species with all other species on this planet. machine enhancement. not just means to a material end. not the reverse. that places no value in culture and science other than that which derives from their contribution to consumption. A high material standard of living is viewed as coming from knowledge and love. A society that will achieve a material standard of living as well as a byproduct of this mentality. longs for a loving. that expresses only passing concern for the fate of future generations.
80 Ideology | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
. disavowing any exclusively homo-centric orientation that would view our fellow creatures as mere fodder for our usage.80
Ideology
But. “Eugenicists” also perceive a need to be open to genetic manipulation. non-predatory society that pursues the goal of intellectual enrichment. rather. the values of the individual or the group.” which is understood more in the spirit of John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) than in the hedonistic pronouncements of Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832). The operative phrase of this ethical system is “the greater good. Culture and science are seen as goals in and of themselves. is the product of an evolutionary process of selection which in the past rewarded “clan-specific altruism”. The society that proclaims maximized material consumption as its ultimate goal.

It is entirely possible. for example. just as we currently import such persons through our national immigration policy. we can easily overestimate our power to predict. but conditions have now changed radically. yet still limited understanding of genetics. to create people with limited intelligence to perform our manual labor for us. there is the danger of being overly narrow in separating the desirable from the undesirable. Given our current. “Eugenicists” maintain that we can either work with nature and achieve utopia. “Eugenicists” argue that there is much in our genes which may have been advantageous to previous generations and species.Ideology
81
The philosophy extends beyond the creature universe to thought itself. And.
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | Ideology
81
. or we can in our greed reject reform and perish. Dangerous? Unquestionably.

and I can’t remember what the second one is.”
Senator Penrose Boies (R-Pa). You send us to Congress. even as we forged into the new millennium. with 40% favoring exclusively “creationism”.”
Senator Mark Hanna (R-Oh) Chairman of the Republican National Committee. the Gallup Poll found that 68% of Americans still favored teaching “creationism” together with “evolution” in the schools. we pass laws under which you make money…and. 47% percent subscribed to the view that: “God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10. 1896
“There are two things that are more important in politics. you further contribute to our campaign funds to send us back again to pass more laws to enable you to make more money.000 years or so” (That’s up from 44% in 1982!)
82
Society and Genes | Hermitage Publishers
. 1896 In 1999.Society and Genes
Politics: “Manipulation Masked as Democracy”
“I believe in the division of labor. The first [one] is money. out of your profits.

universal education combined with “assortative mating” is creating greater and greater genetic stratification into classes which are then overlaid with stratifications of wealth and power. the Tsars. if the individual does not possess independent means and does not want to starve to death. It is a taboo that grossly distorts our understanding of ourselves. Under the Caesars. There probably has never existed a society with a totally rigid structure in which ability played no role. In a “dictatorship”. Theologian The genetic bases of social and political structures constitute a topic that even bolder sociologists and political scientists have been leery of raising for two-thirds of a century. the Ottomans.
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | Society and Genes 83
. the Pharaohs. whereas in a “democracy” the citizenry usually enjoys greater freedom.Society and Genes
83
In the words of the theologian John C. and probably even the Mayan princes. however. Fletcher.” John C. he must perform some function to which society assigns a value. “Such controversy clouds rational discussion with fear and misunderstanding. where such mobility has been immensely increased. In modern society. even in the most permissive “democracy”. government is more inclined to determine directly the various functions performed by its citizens. But. the gifted slave could on occasion demonstrate his ability and achieve high rank. Fletcher.

and thus make it possible to maintain a functioning social mechanism and allow those in power to remain in power. Evidently we have much more in common with cattle than with cats. The distinction between “democracy” and “dictatorship” has to do primarily with how the authorities get the same tasks accomplished… everything from trash hauling to school teaching. True “democracy” is not possible if the people fail to understand the issues. since a leader who refuses to take account of the disposition of forces in that society will eventually be overthrown. for we are herded with amazing ease. The Skinner box of capitalism has proven to be far more efficient than the Gulag in raising production/consumption. This is not stated as a value judgment. “Dictatorships” are difficult to maintain. A low intelligence quotient [IQ] is the breeding ground of despotism. and political history is really nothing more than a broken string of days that will live in infamy.
84
Society and Genes | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
. but is simply a fact of life.84
Society and Genes
Compulsion is a key word in both systems.

In 1933. whose political views were far to the left of McConaughy’s.Society and Genes
85
Democracies.” John McConaughy. it takes place on three levels: o o o Sham issues intended to manipulate the masses. economic purposes – by individual men. arrived at similar conclusions in his book titled “Who Rules America Now?” when he described a cohesive ruling class that shapes the social and political climate and plays a dominant role in the economy and the government with the goal of promoting its own self-interest. “Who Rules America?”. if not sinister. The true (usually clandestine) views of the ruling elite. are generally more ignored than suppressed. They operate behind a mask of puppets in politics and business. or groups or organizations.
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | Society and Genes 85
. on the other hand. which since the beneficiaries do not constitute a constituency. William Domhoff. As for political dialogue. possess considerably greater flexibility through manipulation of the popular will. and Long-term species survival issues. gazing around him in dismay at the Great Depression and peering back at the “holy war fought to make the world safe for “democracy ” the former civil servant John McConaughy in the book “Who Rules America?” defined his country’s “invisible government” as: “The political control for selfish. who are careful to evade the responsibility which should always accompany power.1933 Exactly a half century later the sociologist G.

D. The situation is comparable to a champion sprinter competing against a 90-year-old in a wheelchair. The resulting advertising presents a combination of what the pollsters discover and what the propaganda specialists consider the populace will accept. One percent of American citizens now own 40% of the nation’s wealth. and do so without any sense of guilt. while the lion’s share is invested in advertising that is as little based on logic as an ad for a soft drink. let’s site the city of Washington. Not surprisingly.
86 Society and Genes | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
. In elections. vested interests make electoral campaign contributions. literally a handful of people now control most of the media. politically sophisticated individuals. 37% of that same city’s residents read at a thirdgrade level or lower. the “winners” in this race favor the process that allows them to achieve and maintain their spoils system. What is the true nature of that process? To take but one example. parts of which are used for polling the voters to learn what they want to hear. “DC” is home to a society of “networked” and “monied”.86
Society and Genes
No human interaction is more fiercely competitive than politics. and there is no talk of applying antitrust legislation to stop even further amalgamations.C. However. To make matters worse.

This situation has been made possible by the failure of the general populace to comprehend the true nature of the issues. The result is an unbridgeable chasm of understanding between elites and the broad masses. Should the electoral results be in doubt. how can any rational observer view any human society as a collective of informed individuals making rational decisions? In a 2000 Gallup poll. while a television show of only middling popularity will measure its viewership in the tens of millions.
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | Society and Genes 87
. the system functions incredibly smoothly – exactly as intended. he then goes on to do the bidding of those who paid the bill. A serious book published by a university press may have a print run of a few hundred copies. For persons having a high school education or less and earning less than $20. this particular quotient of ignorance rose to 55%. having outspent his opponent. Indeed. and Hollywood aspires to an audience of billions all over the world. Intellectuals are supposedly free to express their opinions (as least as long as they do not threaten the powers that be).Society and Genes
87
And. 34% of those questioned were unable to name the probable presidential candidates. the candidate has merely to wrap himself in the flag while denouncing his opponents. but informed opinion is irrelevant to the political process. When the candidate is eventually elected.000 annually.

88
Society and Genes | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
. According to the Northeast Midwest Institute.” In addition. But. while 67% of Brits did not know the year World War II ended and 64% did not know which country the French Alps were located in.:97. philosophy. 24% could not convert . literature. and 21% had no idea that the Earth revolves around the sun. even this does not represent the furthest extreme of “egalitarianist ” politics. 60 million adult Americans cannot read the front page of a newspaper. The millions of people ill with dementia to the point that they are unable to dress themselves or recognize family members also participate in selecting national leadership. 18% could not multiply 43 x 67.35 to 35%. serious music. 56% of those tested could not correctly subtract 55 and 37 from 100. Three Americans in ten between the ages of 18 and 24 could not find the Pacific Ocean on a world map. and dream much as we do – such matters are a subject of disinterest for the overwhelming majority of people. and 28% were unable to express “three hundred fifty-six thousand and ninety-seven” as “356. hate.88
Society and Genes
According to a survey done by the National Assessment of Education Progress. 24% of adult Americans were unaware that the United States had fought the Revolutionary War with Great Britain. a non-profit and education research group. As for art. and so on – that intellectual thought and creativity which should lend greater meaning to our lives than those of other animals that love.

delivered before the “Eugenics” Society:
“The lowest strata [allegedly] less well endowed genetically.Society and Genes
89
Surveys of patients at dementia clinics in Rhode Island and Pennsylvania found that 60% and 64% had voted. Brian R. modern society now has stripped the broad masses of society of the brilliant artisans and poets who formerly created and maintained national cultures. “The Child” Is the goal of the so-called welfare state fundamentally “dysgenic” in nature? In 1936.”
Sara Coleridge. In selecting out individuals of ability.
Welfare and Fertility
“See yon blithe child that dances in our sight. respectively. A visit to the magazine section of the local supermarket or a flip through the hundreds of television channels is a dismaying experience. must not have too easy access to relief or hospital treatment lest the removal of the last check on natural selection make it too easy for children to be produced or to survive”
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | Society and Genes 89
. the famous biologist Julian Huxley laid out a hardhearted version of the “hereditarians” view in his Galton lecture. Ott of Brown University found that 37% of patients with moderate dementia and about 18% with severe dementia had voted.

the greater the temptation. never-married mothers who have babies in their teens average eight years or more of dependency. While the average welfare mother receives payments for only two years. It would seem logical that the higher the payments.”
Julian Huxley. or at least relief should be contingent upon no further children being brought into the world. These are the so-called chronic welfare cases. Biologist We must remember that this was written at the depths of the Great Depression and that many of those on welfare were simply victims of failed financial policies.
90
Society and Genes | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
. whereas a woman of low intelligence may rationally see government assistance as a ticket to independence and freedom from the hand-to-mouth realities of a minimum-wage job. These babies make an incommensurate contribution to the future pool of rejected. A young woman of average or greater ability can look forward to life’s many opportunities and finds little temptation in a modest welfare payment. On average the mothers of illegitimate children score ten points lower in [IQ] than mothers of legitimate children. not bad genes. abandoned. The mechanism would appear to be economic. and battered children.90
Society and Genes
“Long unemployment should be a grounds for sterilization.

1. Demographer Daniel Vining. non-(AFDC) mothers averaged 2. but the flip side of the coin is that in doing so we have significantly increased the fertility of low [IQ] women. Indeed.6 children each. all modern societies are confronted with this same dilemma. Whereas.
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | Society and Genes
91
. in the United States the correlation [on a scale of -1 to 0 to 1] between [IQ] measured in the late teenage years and the number of children at age 40 to 45 is equal to -0. We are faced here with a terrible dilemma. Mothers enrolled in Aid for Families of Dependent Children (AFDC) had an average of 2. These women generally tend to marry low [IQ] men in what is known as the process of “assortative mating”. we pay them more for each child. And. for example has pointed out that lower welfare payments in southern states have not led to significantly reduced fertility patterns.Society and Genes
91
Nonetheless. Society has an obligation to care for its weakest members. the link between economics and fertility has been challenged as still unproven. This is a major factor in American fertility patterns. According to the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth.139.

at the very least. given political realities. it would behoove us to increase family-planning services for the poor. What then to do? Deny poor women and their children financial assistance? Bribe the upper classes into childbearing? Or throw up our hands in dismay and allow society to be genetically dumbed-down? Indeed.92
Society and Genes
The geneticist Gerhard Meisenberg has calculated. their rights take precedence. what else can we do? Certainly. It is a simple fact that current state policies – both domestic and foreign – already influence differential fertility patterns. since the unborn constitute a vastly greater potential population than do the currently living. maintaining that. given an estimated additive “heritability” factor of 50% for [IQ]. the average [IQ] of the American population will decline by about 0. that this means in the absence of any further environmental changes.
92
Society and Genes | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
. the public sphere is largely defined horizontally – between those who are currently living – whereas vertical or longitudinal effects are mostly relegated to the private domain and thus ignored. Since future generations by definition represent a zero constituency for any politician. “Eugenicists” oppose this horizontal/vertical opposition.8 [IQ] points per generation.

our species has devoted an immense amount of effort to moving around. Nevertheless. either may occur without the other. We are now able to separate sex from procreation. and what may well be a victory for some faction in their midst may well be a disaster for their children. just as the disasters of the parents may be to the children’s good fortune.
Migration
Settling and dominating the entire planet.Society and Genes
93
Politics is. In the process. migration constitutes a zero-sum game. by definition. “eugenicists” argue that pro-creational rights – inasmuch as they define the very nature of future people – can be ignored by society only to its own detriment. conquered. greater and greater specialization has replaced self-sufficiency and created ruling classes that are often recruited from a multiplicity of ethnic backgrounds. a struggle among the currently living. entire civilizations have been displaced. It is now even possible for women to bypass the male’s sperm. Thus. infiltrated. while leaving the right to sexuality within the private sphere. Since the pool of global talent is neither diminished nor enhanced when a person moves from country A to country B. In economic terms.
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | Society and Genes
93
. some countries are winners while others are losers. and even swamped by imported alien populations.

creating diversity by virtue of lengthy periods of relative genetic isolation. however. the revolution in transportation is undermining this isolation. Early man migrated slowly. The destruction of this “reservoir of human thought and knowledge” is accompanied by a loss of genetic diversity that would cause dismay among ecologists if it were to occur in any other species. but also many who are unlikely to leave the lower economic rung. This is a small enough difference that it may well be explainable by the disadvantaging native environment of many arrivals. or only about one-third standard deviation below the mean. The mean [IQ] of immigrants in the 1980s has been estimated to be about 95.
94
Society and Genes | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
. The United Nations Educational and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) estimates that 53% of the 6.94
Society and Genes
The United States attracts large numbers of very talented individuals.809 languages spoken around the world are at risk of extinction by 2100. Now.

we build asylums for the imbecile. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. and the sick.”
Charles Darwin. As far as written testimony is concerned. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. the maimed. Once Darwin’s 1859 “Origin of Species” had established both the mechanism of evolution and man’s place in nature’s greater scheme of things. at the same time. it was inevitable that people would want to engage in what was then referred to as “racial” improvement. we institute poor-laws. and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment…. Darwin himself became a true “Social Darwinist”. worry about the genetic consequences of eliminating natural selection in the modern world. Social Darwinist
95
A History of the Politics of “Eugenics” | Hermitage Publishers
. They would. bemoaning the fact that:
“We do our utmost to check the process of elimination. Plato’s Republic provides an early theoretical treatise on “Eugenics”.A History of the Politics of “Eugenics”
A Brief History of the “Eugenics” Movement
The first stages of plant and animal-breeding marked the end of the hunter-gatherer period of human evolution.

and “Eugenics” enjoyed broad support among the British elite. and George Bernard Shaw. and by the end of the century. C. By the 1880s. He also proved to be correct (unlike his more famous cousin) in rejecting the “Lamarckianism ” of the age. Richard Dugdale published his famous study of the Juke family. unearthing 709 members of a single family with criminal pasts. Galton was also one of the first to recognize the importance of twin studies.G. Snow.” George Bernard Shaw. In the 1870s. custodial care was widely introduced to prevent the feebleminded from reproducing. which held that acquired characteristics could be passed on to offspring. Even earlier he had done pioneering work in his book(s) titled “Hereditary Genius” (1869) and “English Men of Science: Their Nature and Nurture” (1874). Wells. Elitist The movement was also very strong in the United States at the time. the “Eugenics” Education Society was founded in London. Sir Francis Galton. P. H. including Havelock Ellis. there were cases of sterilization of the feebleminded. “There is now no reasonable excuse for refusing to face the fact that nothing but a “Eugenics” religion can save our civilization from the fate that has overtaken all previous civilizations.
96
A History of the Politics of “Eugenics” | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
. In 1907. who in his 1883 book “Inquiries into Human Faculty” coined the word “Eugenics”.96
A History of the Politics of “Eugenics”
It was Darwin’s cousin.

“Eugenics” societies were founded in various American cities. When World War I broke out.A History of the Politics of “Eugenics”
97
1910 saw the founding of the “Eugenics” Record Office at Cold Spring Harbor. they played a major role in tripling the number of institutionalized feebleminded and in vastly increasing extrainstitutional care. and a number of Americans attended the First International “Eugenics” Congress in London in 1912.
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | A History of the Politics of “Eugenics” 97
. on Long Island.S. “Eugenicists” were split down the middle on the issue. who was wed to a deaf woman and was concerned about the interbreeding of the deaf. contrary to popular belief. Alexander Graham Bell. unfortunately. In the 1920s. respectively. As for sterilization. Both in Great Britain and in the United States adherents numbered only a few thousand. in 1921 and 1932. “Eugenicists” helped the U. the influence of the movement was explained by the wealth and influence of an elite and. an often elitist group. Rather. The Second and Third were held in New York. After 1910. The influence of the “Eugenics” movement did not derive from the number of its members. He became a prominent member of the American “Eugenics” movement. feared that such selective mating could lead to the creation of a deaf population. and they proselytized widely after the war. Army develop intelligence testing.

Neither. these amounted to only 60. 1929. By 1958. national origin quotas were established as the basis of American immigration policy.
98
A History of the Politics of “Eugenics” | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
. were they particularly eager to see “Eugenics” tarred with the polygamist brush. so that immigration flows were made to reflect the ethnic makeup of the country as a whole. In comparison. Even so. Part of the reason for the reluctance was that “eugenicists” were a straight-laced lot. 30 states had passed a sterilization law at one time or another. and in China some thirty million women and ten million men were sterilized between 1979 and 1984. On July 1. for that matter.926. An undetermined number of these were coerced. German submarine warfare had temporarily put a brake on free immigration to the United States during World War I. twenty million sterilizations were performed in India between 1958 and 1980. By 1931. the number of actual sterilizations was modest on a national scale.98
A History of the Politics of “Eugenics”
Neither the National Committee for Mental Hygiene nor the Committee on Provision for the Feebleminded supported sterilization. Congress was strongly influenced by “eugenic” considerations in framing immigration law. In 1924. who were afraid that sterilization could lead to a loosening of sexual mores.

Eighty-four of them preceded Galton’s 1883 coinage of the word “Eugenics”.000 items as opposed to 231. the number comes to 822 for this six-year period – greater than the annual average for books during the peak period of 1910-1919.
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | A History of the Politics of “Eugenics” 99
. There is also a flood of articles on “Eugenics” circulating over the Internet – a medium non-existent in 1910-1919. We can note here only the enormous current interest in the topic. or “Worldcat” on the World Wide Web revealed some 3.A History of the Politics of “Eugenics”
99
The sub-sequent history of “Eugenics” is presented in the next four sub-chapters. Given the revolutionary progress of the science of genetics. A January 2006 Internet search for “Eugenics” using Google produced 1. A search of the Online Computer Library Center [OCLC].840.
OCLC Search for Books on “Eugenics”
before 1883 1883-1889 1890-1899 1900-1909 1910-1919 1920-1929 1930-1939
84 14 23 124 536 419 569
1940-1949 1950-1959 1960-1969 1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 2000-2005
243 128 138 146 230 396 582
If visual and sound recordings are added to the 2000-2006 book-searches.200 published books on the topic.000 as of April 2004. it is a safe bet that this trend represents a rising curve.

] believes in “Eugenics”. During the late nineteenth century the upper classes in Germany – and not only in Germany – turned to Social “Darwinism” as a justification for the disproportionate wealth which they had accumulated. Leo Strauss. it goes like this: [A.100
A History of the Politics of “Eugenics”
Thus.] Hitler believed in “Eugenics” [X.” Aside from economic class. And. is an object of intense vilification. To do so we must begin farther back in time than the [NAZI] period of 1933 to 1945. Thus it was no surprise that in 1893 Alexander Tille promoted the idea that a people which have been raised in the consciousness of competition as a mechanism for achieving progress “will be difficult to convert to Socialist daydreams. Therefore. it is impossible to discuss the “Eugenic” platform without treating the history of “Eugenics” in Germany. the popular view of “Eugenics” as a bygone historical phenomenon is patently incorrect. coined the maxim “reductio ad Hitlerum”. [X] must be a [NAZI]. as such. the philosopher and Zionist member of the Jewish Academy. [This is a patently false representation of logic.
100
A History of the Politics of “Eugenics” | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
. “race” was a much abused theme.
“Eugenics” in [NAZI] Germany
“Eugenics” is now popularly presented as the ideology of Holocaust and.] Yet.

In 1895. Gobineau was best received in Germany. According to Gobineau. but are given over to the struggle for existence. the interbreeding of Nordic types with other groups would lead to degeneration. for they were created only as inevitable byproducts in producing the better. the German amateur anthropologist Otto Ammon preached a gospel of interbreeding: “… the pure original type with somewhat dark longskulled types and round-skulled types with somewhat lighter pigment.” Otto Ammon. The French Count Joseph de Gobineau (1816-1882) developed the notion still further. All intermediate mixed forms therefore do not count among the great successes. The last remaining Aryan groups were seen by him as inhabiting Northern Germany and England. Amateur Anthropologist
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | A History of the Politics of “Eugenics”
101
. and as early as the 1820s the topic had drawn broad public attention. applying it to humans and postulating the existence of an “Aryan” race that supposedly formed the basis of “Nordic” populations.A History of the Politics of “Eugenics”
101
The subject of degeneration in animals had been raised by the French naturalist Georges Buffon (1707-1778) in 1766.

Its use was unfortunate in that it often came to be misinterpreted as referring to individual “races” rather than to the universal “human race” as a whole. was a socialist. thus rendered that process manageable. some of whom were related to each other by marriage. however. The theses of the German Society for Racial Hygiene. Schallmayer. Schallmayer maintained that Darwin. The founder of German “Eugenics”. stood in marked contrast to Gobineau’s views and made no mention of either class or race. picked up on Galton’s “Eugenics” and degeneration – but from a leftist point of view. Schallmayer was captivated by the idea of physical degeneration.
102
A History of the Politics of “Eugenics” | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
. The phrase “racial hygiene” was coined by Ploetz in 1895 as an alternate name for “Eugenics”. while Galton’s interests related largely to intellectual abilities. adopted in 1914. “Racial” was used in the meaning “genetic” at the time. In 1891. was opposed to Gobineau’s racial theories. having discovered the causal nature of evolution. Wilhelm Schallmayer (1857-1919) published a brochure on species decline. Alfred Ploetz (18601940).102
A History of the Politics of “Eugenics”
A relatively small group of German physicians. Alfred Grotjahn (1869-1931) concurred that there was a danger of genetic decline and saw the theory of degeneracy as an important step in the process of “medicalizing” the problem. but.

As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | A History of the Politics of “Eugenics”
103
. syphilis. no mention was made of “race”. and young people were to be instructed as to their “eugenic” obligations to their children. Raising the taxes on alcohol and tobacco. The “Eugenics” Society’s 1931 . Therefore. Young people were asked to be ready to sacrifice for the communal good. Once again.1932 theses again stressed the importance of inheritance. and stressed the importance of the family. and the legal regulation of medically required abortions was also considered. calling for a heightened birthrate and the provision of tax relief for families.A History of the Politics of “Eugenics”
103
The theses called for family-friendly housing and the elimination of factors that might hinder members of certain male professions from having children. Childbearing by persons whose children were likely to suffer from genetic illness was to be discouraged. Lengthy periods of professional training were recognized as undermining fertility. genetic counseling was recommended. warned of degeneration. and the awarding of prizes for literary and art works in which family life was praised. and diseases acquired in the course of practicing a profession plus mandatory exchange of health certificates prior to marriage. Other measures included combating what was then viewed as the hereditary transmission of gonorrhea. tuberculosis. By the end of the 1920s “Eugenics” had moved beyond the small group of specialists to become a topic of national discussion.

Nevertheless this was not what originally concerned Adolf Hitler. but “racial hygienists” attacked the “Malthusians” on the grounds that precisely the more desirable elements of the population were most likely to heed their calls for reproductive restraint and that this ill-advised “altruism” would prove to be “dysgenic”.” Prior to the end of World War I there had been a real fear in Germany of overpopulation. “Eugenicists” came to judge war as “counter-selectionary.a.” Within the context of theories of “racial superiority”.104
A History of the Politics of “Eugenics”
Nineteenth-century “Social Darwinists” had viewed war as an invigorating process that weeded out the weak. Hitler put forward a list of 25 points. just as economic competition sorted out a population into classes according to fitness. The population of the German empire had grown from 45 million in 1880 to 67 million by the end of the First World War. The new fear of under-population made it more difficult to propagandize “negative eugenics”.k. none of which dealt with “Eugenics”. Only in 1918-1919 did the number of deaths exceed the number of births. The word “Eugenics” never even appears in his book titled “Mein Kampf” a. racial “inter-breeding” was seen as a sort of suicide of those of the “superior” race. In 1920. They were also concerned that population decline would pose an existential threat to the “Nordic race.
104 A History of the Politics of “Eugenics” | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
. [“My Struggle”]. but as World War I dragged on.

Still. Obviously. Hitler had heard of “Eugenics” and eventually came to view it – approvingly – as being of a single piece within his ideas of “Social Darwinism” and a mystical “Nordic” or “Aryan” race.A History of the Politics of “Eugenics”
105
To best comprehend the role of “Eugenics” under the National Socialist [NAZI] government. All hundred books are listed in [Appendix 2] of the unabridged edition. although they contain numerous references to “race”. The authors of these books range from [NAZI] ideologues to recognized Western scholars. Even the indexes to “Mein Kampf” and Hitler’s speeches do not list “Eugenics” as a topic. Ninety-six of these indexes did not contain the word “Eugenics”. and not limit my examination of German “Eugenics” to a narrow context. is never mentioned in “Mein Kampf” either). I made no attempt to pre-select other than choosing volumes that deal with the period. “Eugenics” was not the powerful ideological motor during these periods of time as it is so commonly made out to be. much in the spirit of Gobineau (whose name.
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | A History of the Politics of “Eugenics” 105
. It is an experiment that anyone with an afternoon to spare and access to a serious library can easily replicate. but topics as well. The four volumes whose indexes listed “Eugenics” contained only a handful of mentions. selecting whichever books he or she might like. by the way. I approached the topic by first selecting one hundred books dealing with the Weimar and the subsequent [NAZI] period(s) which contain indexes covering not only proper names.

he was also an “anti-universalist” who saw the production of a pure Nordic stock as the ultimate goal of his genetic selection programs. Abilities displayed by other peoples were for him “negative phenomena” which threatened the group he proposed to champion. denounced the unscientific nature of “racial biology” as taught at German universities. Rather than view the development of humanity as one of “cooperation”. A number of German “Eugenicists” held views opposed to the government’s vision of “racial hygiene.” Hans Nachtsheim. Even Fritz Lenz. he held to a doctrine of “competition”. spoke out against “anti-Semitism”.106
A History of the Politics of “Eugenics”
This was a case of explicit “tribalism” buttressed with superstitions and “mysticism”. eventually even producing expeditions to the Himalayas in search of roots.
106
A History of the Politics of “Eugenics” | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
. a proponent of voluntary sterilization and Germany’s leading geneticist after the conclusion of World War II. who was perhaps the most influential German “Eugenicist” during the [NAZI] period. This “anti-universalist” system of values represented a system of values that was also “anti-eugenic” in the most fundamental sense. consistently rejected the [NAZI]s’ ideas of “race”. The biologist and “Eugenicist ”. and the prominent use of Germanic pagan symbols and “runes”. While Hitler may have been a dyed-in-the-wool “hereditarian”. Professor Walter Scheidt.

the Viennese physician Julius Bauer rejected [NAZI] concepts of race as “fantasies plucked from the air” and complained bitterly as to the harm they were doing to the cause of “Eugenics”. That same year prominent “Eugenicists” in the United States and England issued a statement explicitly rejecting “race prejudices and the unscientific doctrine that good or bad genes are the monopoly of particular peoples” ―see Appendix 1 of the unabridged edition). Rainer Fetscher and the former Catholic priest Hermann Muckerman were dismissed from their positions because their worldview contradicted with that of the [NAZI]s. so that “Eugenicists” abruptly found themselves face to face with the temptation to leave behind the pack of daydreaming social reformers and begin to implement “Eugenic” reform. and Fetscher ended up being shot by the SS when he attempted to make contact with the Red Army. British and American “geneticists” criticized the racist orientation of “Eugenics” in Germany.
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | A History of the Politics of “Eugenics” 107
. the National Socialist [NAZI] government took control of scientific institutions and funded a number of chairs of “Racial Hygiene” in German universities.” The biologist and “Eugenicist ” Julius Schaxel protested the exploitation of “Eugenics” by the [NAZI]s and actually emigrated to the Soviet Union. At the International “Eugenics” Conference held in Edinburgh. But. Scotland in 1939. A fellow Austrian physician and supporter of “Eugenics”. condemned the [NAZI] law on “Protection of the Blood.A History of the Politics of “Eugenics”
107
Still another proponent of “Eugenics”. Felix Tietze. “Eugenicists” in other countries explicitly rejected Hitler’s “anti-Semitism” and “racism”.

108
A History of the Politics of “Eugenics”
One geneticist who became an ideologue of [NAZI] crimes was Otto von Verschuer. under the title Forschungen zur Judenfrage . ruddy light-yellow. quite correctly. The article purports to treat physical differences between Central-European Jews and Germans. Verschuer points out the astonishing phenomenon that an ethnic group could preserve itself for two thousand years without a territory. fingerprints. or vulnerability to specific diseases – all of which pose fully legitimate questions for the physical anthropologist – he nevertheless presents a pathological document of ethnic hatred disguised as science. including such characteristics as. or “Studies on the Jewish Question”. The research had been subsidized by the National Socialist [NAZI] government. They have a slinking gait and a “racial scent.” Verschuer then moves on to “pathological racial traits. Taking a great deal of trouble to impart a scientific tone to the text. He then goes on. and kinky hair. fleshy lips. The Jews. Verschuer’s essay.”
108
A History of the Politics of “Eugenics” | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
.” appeared in Hamburg in 1938 as one of nearly fifty articles. dull-colored skin. we learn from Verschuer. published in six volumes. to point out that the differences he describes are not absolutely applicable to either group but are a matter of relative frequency within the two groups. for example. blood types. “The Racial Biology of Jews. have hooked noses.

(It may only seldom have been physical reasons. people in particular who felt related to Judaism on the basis of their intellectual and psychological makeup. and cretins. Geneticist Verschuer then goes on to conclude that there is an absolute necessity for Germans and Jews to remain separated.” That is. he is first and foremost concerned with the prevention of interbreeding with other groups.” Once that primary task has been accomplished Verschuer then insists on combating childbearing by “syphilitics. and only after that with disability.”
Otto von Verschuer. whose author states that “the most lofty human right and obligation is to preserve the purity of the blood. heritable or non-heritable. persons suffering from tuberculosis. persons suffering from genetic disabilities. the element which was absorbed in Jewry was not “foreign. It was a position identical to that laid out in Mein Kampf.) In this sense.
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | A History of the Politics of “Eugenics”
109
. but by the end of the article his “hatred” becomes blatant:
“I believe that only people of a certain type feel attracted by Judaism and could decide on conversion to it.A History of the Politics of “Eugenics”
109
He does concede high intellect and a relatively low birth rate. he saw his argument as being fundamentally “eugenic”. Although nowhere in the article does Verschuer use the word “Eugenics”. cripples.

and used for evil. so convenient for someone consumed with hatred to claim his arguments are the product of scientific reasoning and not emotion. Verschuer’s book titled “Essai sur l’inégalité des races humaines or “A Manual on “Eugenics” and Human Heredity” was published in a French translation in German-occupied Paris in 1943. The danger of the misuse of science will always be with us. It is even more disheartening to see that this product of either a sick mind or shameless opportunism has been translated and distributed by a translator who displays a Ph. he does not call for an extermination of the Jews. but the train of his logic is very close to doing precisely that.D. distorted.
110
A History of the Politics of “Eugenics” | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
. Eugen Fischer. His signature on the preface is dated summer 1941. It was also known at the time. after his name. and Fritz Lenz all read the manuscript and made suggestions. after all. There is probably nothing in the universe that cannot be twisted. as known at the time. Much of the book contains the facts of heredity. who was also keenly interested in twin research. and so on. True. a statistical distribution of variance.110
A History of the Politics of “Eugenics”
It is. and is simply a popularized textbook on human genetics. In it he writes that the prominent “Eugenicists” Erwin Baur. that Verschuer was a mentor for Joseph Mengele.

maintaining that Galton’s “eugenics” and Ploetz’s “racial hygiene” were in complete agreement with regard to both content and goal.
Let us examine each in order: A bill was drafted in 1932 by the Prussian Governmental Council – before Hitler’s accession to power – to lay the groundwork for selective sterilization in cases of heritable diseases. he avoided the insidious “anti-Semitism” of the earlier essay.A History of the Politics of “Eugenics”
111
Obviously. The September 1939 German National Euthanasia program. Although sterilization had been discussed for twenty years. who were critical of it as counterproductive and inefficient with regard to genetic improvement. Mendel. to make the document acceptable to them.a “National Socialism”: o o o The July 1933 German Sterilization Law. In his book Darwin.
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | A History of the Politics of “Eugenics”
111
.” He also praised Gobineau’s work.k. There are three basic charges associated with “Eugenics” under the National Socialist [NAZI‘ Party a. and Karl Pearson were also praised as pioneers of “eugenic” thinking. and The German persecution of Jews and gypsies and their continued mass murder up until the end of the war. the legislation took the leading German “eugenicists” by surprise.

German legislators misguidedly saw sterilization as a cheap alternative to welfare.000 to 350. The Catholic Church was opposed to sterilization. At the time. followed by schizophrenia. 1933. schizophrenia. or severe physical defects. Most sterilizations were for feeble-mindedness. deafness. but the Evangelical Church supported it. hereditary blindness. The debate over euthanasia was launched by Karl Binding and Alfred Hoche’s 192: book “Legalizing the Destruction of Life Not Worth Living”. hereditary epilepsy. sterilizations were also being practiced in a number of European countries and the United States. although on a smaller scale. From 1934 to 1939 an estimated 300. Huntington’s disease.
112
A History of the Politics of “Eugenics” | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
. the legislation was passed by the German parliament. but now it permitted sterilization against the wishes of the individual concerned.112
A History of the Politics of “Eugenics”
On July 14. Rather. No mention was made of race. specifically for the surgical sterilization of persons whose offspring would have a high probability of suffering from physical or mental illness.000 persons were sterilized. entering into force in 1934. manicdepressive syndrome. as well as severe alcoholism. of hereditary feeble-mindedness. “Eugenic” considerations did not play a significant role in the debate.

in 1931. When. however. regarded the institutionalized as “useless eaters” who were taking up the time of hospital personnel and occupying bed space to no worthwhile purpose. the “Eugenicist ” Karl H. put forward a strictly economic argument. the euthanasia question had nothing whatever to do with “Eugenics”. he did so strictly to free up as many as 800. Bauer. Eugenicist Hitler. he issued a secret order initiating a national euthanasia program. but also against “eugenically indicated” pregnancy terminations: “We justifiably reject euthanasia destruction of life not worth living. the “Eugenicist ” Lothar Loeffler argued not only against euthanasia.000 hospital beds for his expected war casualties.
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | A History of the Politics of “Eugenics”
113
. While there may have been some peripheral “eugenic” case to be made for the sterilization legislation. Since persons who were already institutionally segregated and in many cases sterilized could not have had any procreation. German “eugenicists” vehemently attacked euthanasia proposals. stated that if selection were used as a principle for killing people. To their credit. The “Eugenicist ” Hans Luxenburger. In 1926.” and the
Lothar Loeffler. a lawyer and a physician. in September 1939. “then we all have to die”.A History of the Politics of “Eugenics”
113
The authors. In 1933. called for “the unconditional respect of the life of a human individual”. for example.

Nevertheless. but it is not accurate to regard the “Eugenics” movement as the ideological engine of this Holocaust. he regarded them as powerful competitors of the blue-eyed. As for the gypsies and Slavs. and the World for Germany’s defeat in World War I and for the subsequent perceived humiliations brought about by the Versailles treaty. Plus. blond hair race he proposed to champion. When it became apparent that a new defeat awaited Germany as a consequence of World War II. it was Hitler who personally blamed the Jewish people of Germany and Europe. gypsies.
114 A History of the Politics of “Eugenics” | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
. It is true that Hitler. the former were to be exterminated and the latter could be exploited as slaves captured from an inferior tribe. The mass murders of Jews. partly under the influence of a manual on human heredity and “Eugenics” written by Erwin Baur. vengeance became the order of the day. Eugen Fischer. There is no evidence in the literature of the period that the community of German “Eugenicists” called out for such a Holocaust. and Fritz Lenz. it is equally undeniable that there were German “Eugenicists” who allowed themselves to be co-opted by the regime and who helped to create a climate of legitimization of policies of hatred for other ethnic groups. On the contrary.114
A History of the Politics of “Eugenics”
The murder of huge numbers of Jews is an undeniable fact. and many Slavs during the late war period took place in absolute secrecy. supported “Eugenics”. but he did not hate the Jews because he had been taught by “Eugenicists” to classify them as intellectually inferior.

they harmed not only the specific victims of [NAZI] atrocities. history shows “Eugenics” was an argument that could be conveniently twisted by the National Socialist [NAZI] government over the explicit objections of the “Eugenics” movement’s leaders. every step to the right begins with the left foot. Nevertheless. was guilty of complicity. “Eugenics” is not the ideology of Holocaust.
Left and Right
“Remember.”
Aleksandr Galich (Ginzburg)
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | A History of the Politics of “Eugenics”
115
. Christianity and socialism must forever bear their respective crosses of Inquisition and Gulag. Rather. but in one specific country a small group of its adherents. Intellectual history is replete with instances of idealism taking disastrous turns. this was not the driving force behind National Socialism [NAZI] that it is popularly made out to be. a group that had already shrunk even further in the changing climate of contemporary genetics. but their own system of values and beliefs.A History of the Politics of “Eugenics”
115
By giving themselves over to ethnic partisanship rather than universalism.

116
A History of the Politics of “Eugenics” | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
. "is not only absurd." said Moltke. and Havelock Ellis in “Essays in War-Time” (1917) echoed the anti-war protest of the community of “Eugenicists”:
"War invigorates humanity. "as storms preserve the sea from putrescence. and it is historically incorrect to associate the movement exclusively with the political right." “These brave sayings scarcely bear calm and searching examination at the best." said Treitschke. a "national regenerator" which we have good reason to suppose enfeebles and deteriorates the race. "developing man's noblest attributes." "The condemnation of war.116
A History of the Politics of “Eugenics”
The “Eugenicist ” David Starr Jordan in his 1915 book “War and the Breed” took strong exception to the view of war as a form of “natural” selection." said Hegel." "War is an integral part of God's Universe. cannot plausibly be put before us as a method of ennobling humanity or as a part of God's Universe. it is immoral.”
David Starr Jordan. Eugenicist The “Eugenics” movement cut across class and political lines throughout Europe and America. To no small degree it grew to prominence as part of a search for an exit from the excesses of unbridled nineteenth-century capitalism. but putting aside all loftier appeals to humanity or civilisation.

in England. Karl Ploetz. began defending the period’s gross social inequalities. Vladimir Lenin derided the claim that people are equal in ability. Galton’s chief pupil and the leader of Britain’s “Eugenics” movement. who contributed an essay on “Eugenics” to the influential 1890 “Fabian Essays”. in the United States. and William Graham Sumner. Karl Marx [] and his communist manifesto co-author.
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | A History of the Politics of “Eugenics”
117
. where “Eugenics” and socialism were viewed as mutually complimentary – a symbiosis that is still difficult for today’s left to accept. was a socialist who even spent four years in the United States exploring the possibility of establishing a socialist pan-Germanic colony there. was a “Fabian socialist”. There was an influential Weimar Republic “Eugenics” prior to Hitler’s ascent to power in Germany. “Geneticists” in the early Soviet state attempted. The “father” of German “Eugenics”. the left was not about to renounce natural selection. Karl Pearson. as was Sidney Webb. to model the USSR socialist experiment along “eugenic” lines. feeling that the theories of evolution and communism were mutually complementary sciences that dealt with related. unsuccessfully.A History of the Politics of “Eugenics”
117
Even when Herbert Spencer. and proponents of socialism saw no inherent contradiction between the two schools of thought. but different topics – biology and social interaction. Engels were themselves enthusiastic “Darwinists”.

Muller [] argued that the privileges of a capitalist society too often promoted persons of limited ability. Herman J. head of the Munich chapter of the German Communist Party (GCP). who went into exile during the [NAZI] period.118
A History of the Politics of “Eugenics”
The Austrian feminist and socialist journalist Oda Olberg. one of the leaders of Social Democratic Revisionism (SDR). within a socialist framework. Geneticist
118
A History of the Politics of “Eugenics” | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
. and the influential socialist theoretician Karl Kautsky took degeneration for granted. wrote that “Eugenics” would play a role in the development of humanity as a function of technical progress. And further. to reduce the birthrate of the genetically disadvantaged. Another of Schallmayer’s fans was Eduard David. Muller. who attempted to achieve a fusion of “Eugenics” and socialism and vigorously opposed all forms of “racism”. There was even a considerable “Eugenics” faction in the Social Democrat Party (SDP). In the heyday of “Eugenics”. the geneticist Herman J. Max Levien []. was keenly interested in the ideas of Wilhelm Schallmayer. Alfred Grotjahn favored efforts. that: “Society needs to produce more “Lenins” and “Newtons”.

B. the distinguished geneticist J.
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | A History of the Politics of “Eugenics”
119
. Geneticist The traditional breakdown between political left and right can be fundamentally re-phrased as “re-distributive” and “competitive. If we are really all “equal. inequality is genetically pre-programmed. Haldane. S.” Eden Paul. S. Haldane commented in 1949 in the “Daily Worker” that: “The formula of Communism: ‘from each according to his ability. if abilities were equal.” J. on the other hand. to each according to his needs’ would be non-sense. Geneticist-Marxist The geneticist Eden Paul summed up the view of many on the left: “Unless the socialist is a “Eugenicist ” as well.A History of the Politics of “Eugenics”
119
Another confirmed Marxist.” we should for consistency’s sake favor a “best man wins” approach.” respectively. “egalitarianism” is consistent with the competitive point of view. B. then fairness demands that “re-distribution” become the order of the day. the socialist state will speedily perish from racial degradation. If. Logically.

120
A History of the Politics of “Eugenics” First of material goods. but rather will benefit the society of the species “Homo sapiens” as a whole. a genetic “re-distribution” undertaken with close respect to the “Eugenics” definition will not suffer from this zerosum limitation.
120
A History of the Politics of “Eugenics” | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
. and then with time…
“Eugenicists” point out that if a material good can by definition be “re-distributed” only by confiscating from one person to give to another… Then.

but then stops at the dawn of human history. there was the ubiquitous economic collapse of socialist economies.A History of the Politics of “Eugenics”
121
Holocausts were supposed to have been the creations of “hereditarians”. not “egalitarians”. arguing that it was the political right that had attempted to co-opt “Darwinism”. the self-serving tyranny of their bureaucracies. He takes up their cause. Singer propounds a socialism based on championing the rights of the downtrodden. and the poverty into which they had managed to drive their own populations. and self-examination is definitely on the agenda – on the most fundamental level. “Yale University Press” published a tiny volume by the bio-ethicist Peter Singer.
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | A History of the Politics of “Eugenics”
121
. He points out that the 400 richest people in the world possess a combined net worth greater than the bottom 45%. who attempted to bridge the gap between leftist political thought and the concept of “Darwinism”.” Singer maintains. “It seems implausible. And. “that “Darwinism” gives us the laws of evolution for natural history. but the left has generally discredited itself no less than the right with its mass murders. while the left made the mistake of accepting the right’s assumptions. then too. It is not a good time for leftist ideology. As the second millennium came to a close.

122
A History of the Politics of “Eugenics”
In principle. A balance where hereditary factors and environmental conditioning interact. now known as “epi” genetic ―left‖. Environmental “conditioning” that overwhelms any genetic predispositions. Singer is correct in maintaining that a “Darwinian left” can arise again. which has often gone hand in hand with “Eugenics” and the right-to-die movement. hostile to
“Malthusian” thinking. it should be mentioned.
If one imagines a continuum with hereditary factors at one end (right) and upbringing at the other (left). Communist Manifesto Author Karl Marx was. The true conflict rages between interventionism and a laissez-
faire approach.
122
A History of the Politics of “Eugenics” | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
.” Karl Marx. then there are three basic possible political positions which one can take: Genetic “determinism” that explains the diversity between individuals and groups with environmental factors playing a trivial role (right). although traditional Marxists who regard their founding father as a prophet-like figure whose views have forever determined what is left and what is right will undoubtedly point out his famous dictum that: “Social being determines consciousness.
The notorious “nature” v “nurture” debate has been grossly exaggerated by sophisticates who in reality are far less “egalitarian” and “environmentalist” than they would have their naïve followers believe.

there is only one tenable genetic view of the “nature” v “nurture” conflict – that of interactive expression. which today has all but the most radical “egalitarians” in abandonment. [IQ] tests do not test intelligence. [IQ] = 0. there is no such thing as general intelligence [IQ]. The “heritability” quotient of intelligence is zero. Today. These sub-social “egalitarian” environmentalist groups attempt to attribute such [right] views to their opponents in an attempt to discredit them. There are no significant inter-group differences.A History of the Politics of “Eugenics”
123
In reality. While differing levels of individual skills may exist on an intra-group basis. Legitimate differences of opinion relate only to the relative importance of the one factor vis à vis the other. The “Egalitarians” have erected a multiplicity of arguments to defend their [left]:    Modern man represents a “tabula rasa” or “clean slate” upon which environment can write any text. then evolution does not always follow Darwin’s gradualist model.
123
  
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | A History of the Politics of “Eugenics”
. unalloyed genetic determinism (right] is partly a memory of nineteenth-century social “Darwinism” and partly an invention of “egalitarian” environmentalists. As for the all-nurture school [left]. but only the ability to take tests. environmental “conditioning” remains a lovely fantasy (would it be that it were true!). Even if one concedes that the fertility patterns of modern society are in fact “dysgenic”. not mutual exclusion. in which minor alterations lead over time to major evolutionary changes.

This seemingly scientific argument. either did not agree or. but rather submerged by political and social events. however tragic they may be. a “punctuated equilibrium” governs lengthy periods of genetic stasis. Ultimately science cannot be stopped by historical events.” “The appearance of socio-biology probably signifies a fading of the bitter memories surrounding the events of the 1940s.” “Their students. were unwilling to defend that position.”
124 A History of the Politics of “Eugenics” | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
.” “As those memories recede. coming into intellectual maturity in a radically different social climate. in a social climate inhospitable to determinism. The foregoing are essentially delaying tactics. but they have created in the public mind an assumption of genetic exclusionism – the assumption that humankind has emancipated itself from subsequent evolution. University of Massachusetts political scientist Diane Paul has summed up the current intellectual climate quite well:
“Virtually all of the [left] “geneticists” whose views were formed in the first three decades of the century died believing in a link between biological and social progress. applied for example to “crustaceans” is a true “Trojan horse” idea that in realty is intended for the sole purpose of dragging [left] skewed perception into the “gates” of the human city.124
A History of the Politics of “Eugenics”

Rather. it would not be surprising to witness the re-emergence of a doctrine that was never defeated in the scientific arena.

”
Lawrence Wright. National Socialism in Germany [NAZI] attempted to erect a “eugenic” superstructure over a “Social Darwinist” base. basing his assessment on the University of Minnesota twin studies. a viewpoint latent among scientists only requiring another change in the social climate to prompt its reemergent expression. Political Scientist Biologist Lawrence Wright. perhaps. concluded that:
“The prevailing view of human nature at the end of the century resembles in many ways the view we had at the beginning.A History of the Politics of “Eugenics”
125
“From the late 1940s to the early 1970s.”
Diane Paul.
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | A History of the Politics of “Eugenics”
125
. Biologist The following chart has certain artificiality to it. distinct groups. it has been. since people do not fit into neat. For example.

126

A History of the Politics of “Eugenics” The Political - Social Continuum

Privately admit, but publicly denigrate Privately admit, but publicly deny Feasible, but too dangerous Feasible, but not desirable Privately admit, but publicly denigrate Feasible and Desirable, but not essential Desirable

Aside from conflicting ideologies, a huge range of sophistication also exists within the various camps. The following is a simplified breakdown by group:

126

A History of the Politics of “Eugenics” | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)

A History of the Politics of “Eugenics” Social Darwinists

127

Although “Social Darwinists” were major players in the second half of the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth century, they have lost their viability as a distinct group. Selection by mortality has been overwhelmed by selection through fertility, although epidemics such as AIDS and modern warfare may one day reverse this equation, possibly sooner than we think. Nevertheless, “Social Darwinism” lingers on as a “residual” philosophy embedded in the very core of the ideologies of certain groups.
The “Nordic” or “Aryan” Ideal

This is the proto-typical “tribalist” philosophy. Driven underground by the Holocaust memorial movement (in which the author of this book played a modest role), and then later re-launched after the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. This group has been reduced to arguing for “white survival” rather than for “white supremacy”. The average woman in Europe now bears only 1.4 children, whereas 2.1 are needed just to maintain a population. According to the Population Reference Bureau’s 2005 Population Data Sheet, the population of Europe will drop from 9.8% of the global population to 6% by 2050, despite projected strong in-migration.

As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | A History of the Politics of “Eugenics”

127

128

A History of the Politics of “Eugenics”

Equally ominous to these theoreticians are the genetic consequences of racial inter-breeding inevitable in the “global village.” This group’s loyalties are drawn along ethnic lines, not class. They can be certainly termed as “tribalists”.
Sophisticated “Anti-Interventionists”

The defining position of this group is the belief that genetic differences do in fact exist, but that we must suppress awareness of these differences because failing to do so will inevitably cause race and class hostilities and new Holocausts. They oppose intervention in the human germ line, and some of its members are opposed to intervention even in the germ lines of animals and plants. The sophisticated “anti-interventionists” were traumatized by the German slaughter of Jews and by the lip service paid by the National Socialists [NAZI] to “Eugenics”, and this circumstance has shaped their views accordingly. Strangely enough, the private position of this group has much in common with that of the “Eugenicists”. However, there is a considerable gap between the group’s core beliefs and the views which it proselytizes. And, this group wields influence vastly incommensurate with its size. Some social sub-groups of the sophisticated

“anti-

Interventionists” are in realty best tagged as “tribalists”.
128 A History of the Politics of “Eugenics” | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)

and in the case of the “politically naïve” environmental “egalitarians” this goal has been admirably achieved.
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | A History of the Politics of “Eugenics” 129
. Suffice it to say that “Universalist Eugenicists” see themselves as a lobby for future generations. They accept that intelligence [IQ] is strictly the result of education and that “altruistic” behavior. so that a description at this point would be repetitive. They reject even the theory of evolution. or the lack thereof is exclusively the result and domain of upbringing. The goal of any propaganda campaign is to achieve a certain disconnect from practical experience in the targeted population. But.A History of the Politics of “Eugenics” Politically Naïve Environmental Egalitarians
129
“Environmental Egalitarians” are people who have not given much thought to population and who have accepted the massconsumption “egalitarian” gospel disseminated by the sophisticated “anti-interventionists”.
Universalist Eugenicists
“Universalist Eugenics” is described in this book in some detail. Most demographic forecasts now predict a leveling off of the general global population growth. not a geometric “explosion”.
Neo-Malthusians
As many nations pass through the normal ascendancy of demographic transition. this group is losing much of the credence it once enjoyed until only recently. the “Neo-Malthusians” argue that the population may well be too large already to be self-sustaining and that rapid population growth is still alarming in many areas of the planet.

“Eugenicists” could conceivably be “AntiMalthusians”. for example. This group is painfully aware of the unwritten rules of censorship with regard to qualitative studies. In theory. anthropologists.130
A History of the Politics of “Eugenics”
Most “Eugenicists” tend to be “Malthusians”.
Other “disengaged” scholars and scientists
These include “geneticists”. Some members of this particular group can be “ideologized” to a greater degree than non-members. and sociologists. archeologists.
Anti-Malthusians
This group maintains that human capital is itself the greatest resource and that fears of exceeding the planet’s “carrying capacity” are grossly exaggerated and misplaced. so that members of the scholarly and scientific community often seek refuge from ideological storms by occupying themselves with non-controversial questions. A geneticist. The late Julian Simon was the most widely known proponent of this position. demographers. and they can on occasion
130 A History of the Politics of “Eugenics” | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
. but the reverse is not always necessarily true. It is like a mechanic who repairs a carburetor with no thought as to where the automobile is going to go. but this has not been the case historically. as well as psychologists – in a word any discipline devoted entirely or in part to the study of man. may devote himself to studying specific gene sequences and studiously avoid the discussion of all social implications.

but even from themselves. a large percentage of the “Other “disengaged” scholars and scientists” remain oblivious to the philosophical and political implications of their field of study.
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | A History of the Politics of “Eugenics”
131
.A History of the Politics of “Eugenics”
131
permit their personal views to influence their studies. concealing the fact not only from the public. On the other hand.

In reality. Rumania. “National Socialist” [NAZI] “ideology ” inspired by Anglo-American elites. Mexico. Portugal. Poland. the Jewish nation did play a modest. Cuba. do what I tell you”. Hungary. Belgium. Norway. and Turkey. Estonia. New Zealand. Russia. in his book “Tomorrow’s Children”.
Everyone’s Father [Fuehrer] The popular impression is that the original “Eugenics” movement was a “racist ”. Canada. The original “Eugenics” movement also managed to establish strong bridgeheads in Argentina. Japan. which he also viewed as being fundamentally “eugenic” in nature. Rabbi Max Reichler published an article entitled “Jewish Eugenics” in which he attempted to demonstrate that Jewish religious customs were in fact “eugenic” in thrust. India. which was published in conjunction with the directors of the American “Eugenics” Society. Greece. Italy. Czechoslovakia.132
The Jewish Question
The Jewish Question
“Don’t do what I do. the Netherlands. Australia. Denmark. China. echoed Reichler’s arguments. Spain. Brazil. Sweden. South Africa. fully “anti-Semitic”. Bolivia. Austria. Finland. In 1916. but active role in the early “Eugenics” movement. Switzerland.
132
The Jewish Question | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
. praising the Jews as being of uniquely superior stock and explaining their achievements due to a systematic adherence to the basic principles of Jewish religious law. A decade and a half later Ellsworth Huntington.

and Chajes. Curt Stern. Max Levien. when the revolutionary anarchist editor of the “American Journal of Eugenics”. Hirschfeld. Benno Chajes. the mathematician Felix Bernstein. and the physicians Alfred Blaschko. Magnus Hirschfeld. the “Eugenicist ” and University of California professor of zoology Samuel Jackson Holmes noted the significant number of Jews in the “Eugenics” movement and praised their “native endowment of brains”. Emma Goldman’s magazine “Mother Earth” took over distribution. Max Hirsch. Georg Löwenstein. Löwenstein was a member of an underground resisting the National Socialist [NAZI] government.The Jewish Question
133
In the Weimar Republic many Jewish socialists actively campaigned for “Eugenics”. and Albert Moll. the statistician Wilhelm Weinberg. Max Marcuse. A partial list of prominent German-Jewish “Eugenicists” would include the “geneticists” Richard Goldschmidt. the head of the first Munich Soviet. a member of the German Socialist Party [GSP]. Goldschmidt. Lehmann as a targeted subversion on the part of Berlin Jews. They used the Socialist newspaper “Vorwärts” as their chief tribune. “The German League for Improvement of the People and the Study of Heredity” was even attacked by the [NAZI] publisher Julius F. died in 1910. Heinrich Poll. and Julius Moses. co-author of “The Hardy-Weinberg Principle”. In America. believed strongly in “Eugenics”. In 1933. Moses Harman. and Moll all emigrated elsewhere.
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | The Jewish Question 133
.

when he wrote a letter to Stalin proposing that the Soviet Union adopt “Eugenics” as an official policy. It was in the middle of his Moscow sojourn that Muller’s “Eugenics” treatise titled “Out of the Night” appeared in the United States. some 200 Hebrew-language parental manuals were published.
134 The Jewish Question | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
.134
The Jewish Question
While at the same time lamenting the racial bias suffered by the Jews. Muller had spent a year in Germany and he was outraged by [NAZI] concepts and policies concerning race. for his work on genetic mutation rates. A communist. These publications contained a coherent worldview. from the 1920s through the 1950s. which caused many of their intellectuals to be wary of “non-egalitarian” worldviews. Muller spent 1933-1937 as a senior geneticist at the University of Moscow. One of the most prominent “Eugenicists” was the American Herman J. subjecting Jewish mothers to an unremitting program of education. in 1946. in 1935. of which “Eugenics” formed an integral part. According to the “National Library” in Jerusalem. indoctrination and regulation. In 1932. Muller [] whose mother was Jewish and who received the Nobel Prize in medicine. The “American Eugenics Society” counted Rabbi Louis Mann as one of its directors. at which point Muller judged it wisest to leave for Scotland and then returned to the United States. It was the eve of “The Great Soviet Purges” and Josif Stalin definitely disapproved of the idea.

Israel”
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | The Jewish Question
135
. Joseph Meir. “Eugenics” in general.
Dr. for whom the hospital in “Kfar Sava. wrote in 1934:
“Who should be allowed to raise children? Seeking the right answer to this question. Is it not our duty to insure that our children will be healthy. Jewish physicians in Palestine actively promoted “Eugenics”. and mainly the careful prevention of hereditary illnesses.”
Dr. athletes. “Meir-Kfar Sava Hospital. Doctors. Meir’s Response
Dr. Joseph Meir. “Eugenics” is the science that tries to refine the human race and keep it from decaying. has a much higher value than in other nations. both physically and mentally? For us.The Jewish Question
135
During the British mandate. This science is still young. both mentally and physically. but it has enormous advantages…. and politicians should spread the idea widely: Do not have children unless you are sure that they will be healthy. Israel” is named.

it is too dangerous to publish this article. a past chairperson of the World Zionist Organization [WZO] office located in the then territory of Palestine.” In point of fact. Past Chairman. World Zionist Organization [WZO] In Israel today many “eugenic” practices have become widely accepted. after the advent of [NAZI] “Eugenics”. was converted to the tribal concept of “Zionism” by Theodore Herzl and became prominent in the movement. Dr. which included vigorously propagandizing for the “Eugenics” movement became so popular in the Jewish community that “Nordau Clubs” were created even in the United States.
136
The Jewish Question | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
. published in Israel in the mid-1950s where the editors called the article “problematic and dangerous” and commented that: “Now. Arthur Ruppin. Dr. knowledge of Jewish support for “Eugenics” in pre-1948 Palestine was suppressed for many years.136
The Jewish Question
One researcher at the “Ben-Gurion University” in Israel working on the topic “Zionist” “Eugenics” came across a card file with notes written by the editors of a collection of Dr. the son of an Orthodox rabbi. Meir’s writings. Max Nordau. Arthur Ruppin. such Jews [showing signs of genetic defects] must refrain from having children. “Nordau’s ideas”.”
Dr. wrote in his 1930-31 book “The Sociology of the Jews” that:
“In order to preserve the purity of our “race”.

As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | The Jewish Question
137
. Women over thirty-five routinely consent to amniocentesis tests and abort if genetic defects are discovered. the Zionists’ “Eugenics” turned into a selective prenatal policy backed by state-of-the-art genetic technology. In cases where the husband’s sperm is not viable. which is screened for TaySachs disease. Surrogacy was legalized in 1996.The Jewish Question
137
According to Meira Weiss of the “Hebrew University” of Jerusalem. Israel:
“In Israel. although the chief motivation appears to be at least as much quantitative as qualitative. Thus. but only for married women. donors fill out extensive health histories. Abortion is subsidized if the fetus is suspected to be physically or mentally malformed. It too is paid for by the State. Israel There are now more fertility clinics per capita in Israel than in any other country in the world (four times the number per capita in the United States). “Hebrew University” Jerusalem.”
Meira Weiss. the government is actively pursuing “Eugenics”. The State supplies the sperm.

thus making it possible to combine Jewish legal principles with modern legal practices. the Chief Rabbinate of Israel sees no inherent religious interdiction in reproductive “Cloning ” as a form of treatment for infertility. By its very nature. and also because the mitochondrial marker of “Jewish-ness” is in fact passed exclusively through the mother. Although human reproductive “Cloning ” is currently not permitted because the technology is not yet considered safe. sperm donation using anonymous donors could conceivably and subsequently lead to a marriage between a brother and a sister.138
The Jewish Question
Jewish religious law does not delegitimize the children of unmarried women. Curiously. since masturbation by non-Jews is not of explicit rabbinic concern.
In vitro fertilization and embryo transfer are preferred by
some rabbis as a form of fertility treatment that does not violate the literal “Halakhic” precepts against adultery. and even sees an advantage over sperm donation. however. consider the use of non-Jewish sperm an abomination. The Israeli attitude toward “Cloning ” also differs considerably from that prevalent in most other countries.
138
The Jewish Question | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
. Children born to different Jewish mothers using the same sperm donor may even marry since “they share no substance”. some rabbis refuse to condemn the use of nonJewish sperm. Other rabbis.

tacitly endorsed by traditional Judaic teachings. the change in the means for its advancement need pose no obstacle to its pursuit. insofar as the goal itself is acceptable. Zohar wrote that:
“A program of individualized “Eugenics”… would seem to be consonant with an attitude that was.” “To work out a Judaic response to the sort of new “Eugenics” now looming on our horizon it will be necessary to evaluate the various specific means that might serve a modern individualized “Eugenics”. although more than eight decades had passed since the appearance of Reichler’s 1916 essay.” “Should it make a difference if the means for producing fine offspring are no longer determined by moralized speculation but instead by evidence-based genetic science?” “It seems to me that. responded to Reichler.The Jewish Question Dr.” Noam J. Noting that Reichler’s emphatically pro-“Eugenics” views were “shared… by more than a few Judaic circles today. Zohar’s Response
139
In 1998. at the very least. Noam J.
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | The Jewish Question
139
.” “This is so of course provided that the new means are not morally objectionable. Zohar. a professor of philosophy at “Bar-Ilan University” in Israel.

Zohar. Bar-Ilan Univ.”
Noam J. Israel
140
The Jewish Question | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
.140
The Jewish Question
“I hope that some of the groundwork for that has been laid in this examination of traditional Judaic voices. Professor of Philosophy.

The Suppression of “Eugenics”
141
The Suppression of “Eugenics”
“Democracy” demands that all of its citizens begin the race even. Despite this upbeat note. “The Great Roob Revolution” Although the attack on “Eugenics” had been launched in the late 1920s. “honkie. “Eugenics” survived even the embrace of [NAZI] Germany. And. “egalitarianism” insists that they all finish even. Joshua Lederberg. Muller. in 1963 “The Ciba Foundation” ‗now: “The Novartis Foundation”‘ convened a conference in London under the title “Man and His Future. the public found discussions of genetic racial differences intolerable.University of Minnesota campus:
“One graduate student in education said “he was going to kill us” if we continued to do research on black children.”
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | The Suppression of “Eugenics”
141
. Outraged by pictures of police dogs attacking civil rights protesters in the South.”
Roger Price. Another paced up and down in front of us calling out. a large group of black students descended upon the office of Professor Sandra Scarr [] at the Institute of Child Development. honkie.” at which time three distinguished biologists and Nobel laureates (Herman J. In 1974. and Francis Crick) all spoke strongly in its favor. honkie. “Eugenics” was about to undergo a total rout.

protestors began marching down the aisles waving placards and charts. When his book “The [IQ] Argument” first appeared in the United States. he also received bomb threats. Not only were Jensen’s lectures regularly broken up. wholesalers and booksellers were threatened with arson and violence. were triggered by statistical assertions of “average” or mean [IQ]s. without exception. he and Scarr were spat upon by a phalanx of radical students. D. on research with recombinant DNA. his eyeglasses broken and blood streaming from his face.
142 The Suppression of “Eugenics” | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
. the USA “National Academy of Sciences” [NAS] sponsored a forum in Washington. The premise differed between racial groups.Berkeley] visited the Institute in 1976..142
The Suppression of “Eugenics”
When Arthur Jensen of the University of California at Berkeley [UC.C. Hans Eysenck at a lecture to have been delivered at the London School of Economics was first prevented from speaking by the chanting of “No Free Speech for Fascists!” and then physically attacked and had to be rescued from the stage. specifically between whites and blacks. some of whom physically attacked the speakers and those who had invited him. No one seemed to notice that the issue was essentially irrelevant to the cause of a genetically based “Universalist Eugenics” movement which had been advocated for all groups. The above scenes. and many others like them. In March 1977. As the first session began. and he had to be put under constant guard. and the book became almost impossible to obtain.

or the American rebuttal of atomic bombing the Japanese cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. So effective was the campaign to launch the Holocaust memorial. confusion has taken place within the Jewish community. and this confusion is fraught with significance for Jews today. than could recall or identify the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.” The general public is totally unaware that on September 16. Hence. albeit fully understandable. those who now purport to be familiar with the term “eugenics” associate it with the terms “holocaust” and “racism. An enormous. According to the “National Jewish Population Survey” ‗NJPS]. 1939. and nearly half of all American Jews are age 45 or older. reflecting a pattern typical of similar high-[IQ] groups. the leaders of the “Eugenics” movement in the United States and England explicitly rejected the racist doctrines of the [NAZI] government (see Appendix 1 of the unabridged edition‖…as did many German “Eugenicists”.The Suppression of “Eugenics”
143
The second chief factor in the suppression of “Eugenics” was the launching of the Holocaust memorial movement subsequent to the 1967 Arab/Israeli war. This is literally a matter of survival. Jews in America entered into a recent precipitous decline in population numbers in the decade 1990-2000.
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | The Suppression of “Eugenics”
143
. The result is that half of Jewish women aged 30-34 have no children. that polls showed many more Americans could then identify the Holocaust event and the subsequent memorial.

144
The Suppression of “Eugenics” | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
.144
The Suppression of “Eugenics”
Beginning in the early 1980s. guarded. He goes on to quote the phrases: “those miserable 15 [IQ] points” And.” maintaining that scientific rights of research “might be qualified by the rights of others” and further muses whether certain research topics should be pursued at all. but even so the majority of these publications are still either hostile or. Tucker dismissed “the trivial scientific value of [IQ] “heritabilities. “Are you using such gifts as you possess for or against the people?” Tucker can best be seen as a moderate in the “egalitarian” camp. including a huge number of articles in the published literature and later over the Internet. proposes applying the Nuremburg Code to researchers. He also advocates denying government funding to racial research. Tucker’s book titled “The Science and Politics of Racial Research” (1994). publications on “Eugenics” enjoyed a considerable upswing. and that subjects should be informed of the nature of the research in case they find the results of the research unflattering. states that the subjects of psychological research “can be wronged without being harmed”. at best. While claiming to support freedom of scientific inquiry. One relatively recent example is William H.

Other phrases that have been used to describe the study of “Eugenics” include “opprobrium” or “the disgrace or the reproach incurred by conduct considered outrageously shameful”.” The very mention of the word “eugenics” in some circles can summon up such epitaphs as “unconditional condemnation” and “a shameful practice”. “American charlatans”. Even so. “Eugenics” in various places is still described as “utopian” and “unrealistic”.
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | The Suppression of “Eugenics”
145
. Still others include. “fear”. “elitist” and “the demon of “Eugenics”. some of whom are hostile to “Eugenics” while others are actually quite supportive of the movement. “rampant”. “Radical” and “Immoral”. “the threat of “Eugenics”.The Suppression of “Eugenics”
145
Missa and Susanne’s 1999 book “De l’eugénisme d’État à l’eugénisme privé” or “From State Eugenics to Private Eugenics” is a collection of articles authored by a group of Belgian and French scholars and scientists. “menace” “peril”. “The danger of a “eugenic drift”. “infamy” and the “horrors” of “classical” “Eugenics”. “insidious”. “risk”. “Eugenics” is also said of its goals to be “unachievable” and further draws upon a mis-representation of “a collection of false ideas” which are “contradictory” and “disproven by research. “A dangerous trend”.

USA In 1990. in 1973. the College Board further dropped the words altogether and declared that the initials no longer stood for anything whatsoever. and by borrowing a phrase from the Soviet purges. Dues are [$40] annually and can be remitted to: Eileen Crimmins. CA 90089-0191. The reason. to “The Society for the Study of Social Biology” or [SSSB]. In 1969. was that such work would eventually be put to evil uses by the large corporations and governments that control science. the young scientists involved in the project decided they would not continue their work on DNA. “egalitarians” denounced “Eugenics” as a “pseudoscience”. shortly after the first isolation of a DNA fragment which constituted of a single identifiable gene. Around this time. That is the reason given as to why the American “Eugenics” Society was forced to change its name. In 1996. the College Board changed the name of the SAT test from Scholastic Aptitude Test [SAT] to Scholastic Assessment Test [SAT]. the journal titled “Eugenics Quarterly” which had been the successor publication to the former magazine titled “Eugenic News” was itself renamed “Annals of Human Genetics”.The Suppression of “Eugenics”
147
The campaign against “Eugenics” has been remarkably effective in achieving its goals.
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | The Suppression of “Eugenics” 147
. they reported. The following year. Secretary-Treasurer Andrus Gerontology Center University of Southern California Los Angeles.

”
“Hamlet” by Shakespeare [] Ultimately. Or.
148
The Suppression of “Eugenics” | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
. We could [and. the “Eugenicists” themselves all ran for cover. reclassifying themselves as “population scientists”. we could lose too much diversity. the danger is real. It would not take much work to come up with a lengthy list of past abuses. have the ability to make] terrible mistakes.148
The Suppression of “Eugenics”
Sensing a turn. but yet I could accuse myself of such things that it were better my mother had not borne me.”
Genetic Abuse
“I am to myself indifferently honest. the most serious argument militating against “Eugenics” is its possible abuse. or “human geneticists”. We are just now deciphering the blueprints according to which we ourselves were constructed. or “demographers”. Still another danger is increased inequality if only the already privileged classes benefit from genetic technology. Unquestionably. or “anthropologists”. The baby can always be drowned in the bath water. or “genetic counselors. We as a species have much in our past for which we can now experience only shame.

It is assumed. so that may be a real danger. Currently people feel they have the right to regard their fellow travelers on this planet as objects of consumption. but simply concerned thinkers who fear the man in the street most of all. “Eugenics” could be misused to justify the elimination of peoples judged “inferior” or simply hated for whatever reason. are right to experience misgivings. It is already possible to begin modifying animals to enhance their intelligence to allow them to perform tasks currently performed by people. For that matter.
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | The Suppression of “Eugenics”
149
. But imagine the moral dilemma that would face us if we had to deal with animals whose abilities overlapped the lower range of skills capable of the human population. that a ready market will always exist for cheap. or even to create animal-human hybrids. “Sophisticated egalitarians” who are not really “egalitarians” at all. as not very distantly past history teaches us. The potential abuse of genetics is not limited to distorting the human genome.The Suppression of “Eugenics”
149
And. low-skilled workers. so that there is not even a discussion of this frightening prospect. who can possibly predict what new evils the fertile human brain is capable of in some unknown future? It is indeed frightening.

150 Population Management | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
. Nevertheless. simple viability is the goal. A “drain the pond and re-stock” methodology is not only morally objectionable with regard to people. the specifics of human population administration are not identical either in goals or methodology to non-human population management techniques.150
Population Management
Population Management
There are two basic views of humankind: o that we have been created in the image of God and thus are so perfect that any improvement is unthinkable. its feasibility is also questionable. or that while our species possesses great positive features as well as negative. and – at the very least – prevention of genetic decline is an absolute and moral imperative. enhancement is essential. In dealing with non-domesticated animal populations. For “Eugenics” as a movement to escape the temptation of “utopian” fantasy. health being defined as the capability to survive and re-produce within an environment. Blatantly co-ercive measures can even be counter-productive when they engender resistance to “eugenic” reform. it must be oriented toward the realistically achievable.
o
In many ways “Eugenics” prescribes for humankind the same goals as for non-human species: A healthy population probably limited in size so as not to upset nature’s intricate balance of species and environment.

they are submerged in the great demographic currents. human health criteria may also include “intelligence” or ‗IQ] and “altruism”. since it is they and only they who can implement “eugenic” reform. There is also a role to be played by non-governmental organizations. The weaker the government. the smaller the potential for rational population management. only relative minor impingements on the well being of the current human population can be tolerated. the most infamous method of which is genocide. History is replete with instances of forced population management.Population Management
151
By contrast. whereas wildlife managers take for granted that a balance between prey and predators is a healthy thing. on this point realistic modern “Eugenics” departs radically from that which was preached a hundred years ago. no such “Spencerian” survival of the fittest is appropriate for humans. Despite the grand continuity of belief retained by modern “Eugenics” from the earlier tradition.
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | Population Management
151
. and thus global “eugenic” reform is a task for society as a whole. For example. As for methodology. But other compulsory methods have also been employed. whose freedom can be less fettered than that of governments. Although individual “eugenic” efforts are already in full swing. The strength of the government relative to that of the governed population determines the limits to governmental intervention (and abuse).

On the other hand. although India ultimately came to reject this policy.1 that will soon surpass China ―TFR: 1. Shifting our focus from quantitative to qualitative questions. Bangladesh and Haiti come to mind. China’s semi-compulsory one-child policy has proven far more “efficacious”. the nation’s current population is many millions of people smaller than it would have been today without the implementation of [Indira Gandhi’s policies].000) than it would have been without the implementation of the “one-child” policy. but the political will even to raise the topic is totally absent. Nevertheless. the government of Indira Gandhi implemented a policy of “compulsory sterilization” and performed many vasectomies. And. Thus. Global society is living a fatal lie. Reproductive responsibility “reproductive rights.7‖ as the world’s most populous nation. there are situations where emergency methods may well present the only means of averting major catastrophe. the debate over voluntary versus compulsory methods has thus far amounted largely to pandering to the whims of current generations. it will be India with a total fertility rate [TFR] of 3.152
Population Management
For example. It is estimated that by the year 2000. the Chinese population was already a quarter billion less (250.” has been replaced by
152
Population Management | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
.

the millions of disadvantaged offspring whom he and she may ultimately engender over the subsequent generations.Population Management
153
But do people have the “right” to give birth to babies who in all probability will grow up feeble minded or who are likely to suffer from devastating genetic illnesses? On the one side of the equation may be a single person with a genetic [IQ] so low that simply coping in society is well nigh impossible and. while compulsion has its place.
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | Population Management 153
. This is an unpopular statement. And. Clearly. the good news is that energetic voluntary measures ought usually to be sufficient to permit women of reproductive age to realize their goal of smaller families and healthier children. voluntary methods are generally preferable to compulsory although the line between voluntarism and coercion can often be vague. but it has to be said. One voluntary method involves the use of ultrasound to determine the sex of the fetus. Can it be that we are so selfish as to want to breed a genetically disadvantaged class of servants to perform our menial tasks for us? The grand demographic trend is toward below-replacement fertility rates. on the hand. Forced sterilizations of persons with genetically predetermined low [IQ] and major genetic illnesses should be reinstituted. Our current refusal to take into account the right of future generations to health and intelligence is a cowardly betrayal of our own children.

having increased to 108. In a ten-year study of babies born in Delhi hospitals in the period 1993-2003.9 in 1987. and a tiny male population is capable of impregnating a huge female population. where the 1991 census indicated approximately 35-45 million missing women. By 2002. As early as the year 2000. the number of men in China was already estimated to exceed that of women by sixty million (60.86 males per 100 females.000 boys if the first child was a girl. population management has to be female-oriented. since only females can bear children. the figure became far more skewed in favor of boys. The situation is much the same in India.000. China’s fifth national census revealed a sex ratio at birth of approximately 116.5 in 1982 and 110. the ratio was only 219/1. the number of female births was 542 per 1. The Chinese infant sex ratio was normal in the 1960s and 1970s (roughly 106 boys for every 100 girls).000. Thus. Ultimately the number of males in a population is reproductively insignificant.000) people. but when the “onechild” policy was introduced in the 1980s.
154
Population Management | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
. when ultrasound was far less available than it is now.154
Population Management
In many developing countries the desire for male offspring is even strong enough to induce parents to abort females. If the first two children were girls.

heightened competition for females would disproportionately reward high-[IQ] males. It goes without saying that this is a tragic turn of events for those men who do not find a mate for themselves. Moreover. simultaneously attacking both quantitative and qualitative demographic problems. “polygamy” should be universally decriminalized.50).) A sea change is already underway. made easily available to low-[IQ] families.
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | Population Management
155
. although the desire for sons is greatest among rural populations. by 2005 many clinics offered ultrasound for as little as 500 rupees ($11. so that this practice appears to have been “dysgenic” thus far. But. it could become strongly “eugenic” in nature. or if such families were even financially rewarded. (The historic link between “Eugenics” and “Malthusian ” thought should be emphasized at this point.Population Management
155
Unfortunately. including ultrasound. but it is a far lesser evil than “dysgenic” overpopulation.) Why? Because the legal enforcement of monogamy is a “dysgenic” intrusion into personal freedom. No scientific breeder would ever even consider it. (For this same reason. Another voluntary method is a vigorous promotion of contraceptive methods among low-[IQ] families. high-[IQ] families possess greater access to modern medicine.

since it often serves as the last and even only resort for many low-[IQ] mothers who fail to practice contraception. it can go a long way toward reducing the birth rate. Reversible sterilization should also be actively promoted. Rather than simply pay low-[IQ] women more for each child. who otherwise are tempted either not to have children at all. etc. sacrificing their unborn children before the altar of career advancement. Plus. Abortion should be actively promoted. day-care centers.156
Population Management
While education by itself is not about to cancel out the sex drive of young people. “Eugenic” family planning services are the greatest gift that the advanced countries can offer the Third World. nurseries. The goals of the feminist movement wed to the anti-scientific world view of radical “egalitarianism” will devastate our species. or to have too few.
156
Population Management | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
. This would promote fertility among high-[IQ] women. parochial fixation on any one country is a pathology that human society can ill afford. Society should put more emphasis on greater tax credits for families with children. welfare policies need to be radically re-examined. In a global society. financial support should be made dependent on consent to undergo some form of lasting contraception or even sterilization. The current debate between “pro-choice” and “pro-life” fails utterly to take into account the consequences of abortion for genetic selection.

And the technology should be developed to create an artificial womb or. make inter-species embryo transplants a reality. the importation of low-[IQ] groups to perform unskilled labor at low wages must be recognized as a threat to the host population’s long-term viability. all of which suffer when their least intelligent [IQ] members serve as the breeding pool. Religious belief will always be with us. Sperm banks need to be encouraged to attach the greatest importance to intelligence. and the promotion of these institutions should be covered out of tax monies. Such a policy would promote the interests of any ethnic group. while the most intelligent [IQ] encounter strong disincentives to fertility. rapidly increasing the number of individuals with the most preferred “Genotype”s. At the same time there is a huge potential for excess if “Eugenics” were to become a core belief of the masses. alternatively. Genetic research needs to be promoted without regard to cost. Useful measures would include paying low-[IQ] women to accept embryo transfer. In different countries a different mix of governmental and nongovernmental activism is appropriate. Who can say what enormous potential awaits us in the future as a result of germ-line intervention? On the immigration front. and “Eugenics” must not be presented as scientific in an anti-religious sense.Population Management
157
What is needed is tough love.
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | Population Management 157
.

If real sacrifice is required on the part of the currently living. Like a sword into scabbard. is “Eugenics” then not simply a fantasy? To evaluate the feasibility of re-establishing the “Eugenics” movement as a viable social force. it is dismissed as “utopian”. and the loss of such uniqueness is everyone’s loss. All populations represent unique entities. “Lamarck” When an ideal is recognized as unachievable.”
Osip Mandelstam. Nevertheless. those whose true “altruism” extends downward for only a generation or two and who for the most part are indifferent to culture and civilization.
Feasibility
“Nature has packed away this long brain.
158
Population Management | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
.158
Population Management
“Panmixia” v “Fixation” also represents a loss in genetic diversity. inbreeding can only increase in the future. we must first take a hard look at our political systems and move beyond the populist jingoism which is as eternal as it is ubiquitous. given the realities of improved transportation and communication. She has forgotten those whose grave is green. whose laugh is supple. Whose breath is red.

or even permitted to voice discontent. Level C: prominent government staffers and media. politicians need money for polling and advertising/propaganda. Level D: the general population. power is patently invested in one person. To be sure.” politicians then implement the will of those who provided and provide the financing. their protests are used as a demonstration of “freedom of speech. Since they pose no threat to the system. Once “elected. To be elected. that of employee to employer. there are sophisticates within the general population who are not duped as to the nature of the system. as follows: Level A: lobbies and (largely anonymous) oligarchs. While the media (also owned by Level A) entertain the general population with competitions in which the differences between the competitors are minimal. Level B: politicians. What is crucial in this scheme of things is that the relationship of Levels B and C to Level A is. co-opted. while losing politicians are “parked” in profitable ceremonial positions to ready themselves for the next round.”
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | Population Management
159
. but they can be intimidated. to a significant degree. whereas in “democracies” the pyramidal power structure is more opaque.Population Management
159
In a “dictatorship”.

One obvious factor that will promote the “eugenic” agenda is the undeniable desire of parents to have healthy. fertility assistance. “Eugenics”. genetic research. Many of the decisions being taken on at the governmental level are already fraught with genetic consequences – family planning programs. The world is divided into independent nations. and so on. it would be possible in at least some of the world’s governments to set up a “positive eugenic” breeding program which would not necessarily depend on human birth mothers. and the implementation of a viable “Eugenics” policy is dependent upon relatively tiny elite populations. and thus the bar will be raised from simply eliminating disastrous diseases to attempting to produce children who enjoy genetic advantages that are currently available to a smaller percentage of the population. “Eugenicists” argue that it is only reasonable that the decision makers take into account the “eugenic” or “dysgenic” consequences of governmental actions. is not an either/or proposition. considering that even artificial insemination continues to be resisted in some quarters.160
Population Management
The bottom line is that all political systems (and perhaps even all human social structures) are oligarchic in nature. “Cloning ”. immigration criteria. mandated paid parental leave. Genetic screening of embryos will obviously encompass a greater and greater range of detectable traits. however. Given the necessary funding. tax credits for having children. intelligent children. legalized and subsidized abortions. The resistance to such changes is understandably intense.
160 Population Management | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
.

As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | Population Management 161
. non-participating countries/groups would sense a competitive threat to their offspring and would be sorely tempted to launch a pre-emptive strike so as to avoid the necessity of introducing a “Eugenics” policy themselves. unlike the traditional methods of positive and negative “Eugenics”. Advertising and political propaganda come down to cost. or if any ethnic group were to follow such a course of action. unimpaired children. but not what we may be. But if any individual country were to aggressively pursue a national “Eugenics” policy while being militarily weak. public opinion is extremely malleable. will make it possible even for people who are burdened by multiple bad genes to have healthy. We will be able to go much further and alter the genetic constitution in the most radical fashion. it is entirely foreseeable that future knowledge will permit us to go beyond simple genetic tinkering to replace this or that disease-engendering gene or enhance some desirable ability or personality trait.
Radical Intervention
“We know what we are.”
“Hamlet” by Shakespeare While we are still at an extremely early stage in our understanding of human genetics. This method will entirely bypass the intergenerational conflict of interests which works to the disadvantage of the helpless unborn.Population Management
161
Germ-line therapy. As discussed above.

Should we really attempt to preserve human nature or should we attempt to change it? John H. the consequent malleability of life.”
John H. Recent writing now discusses the “fungibility” of DNA. We shall be able to redesign our biological selves at will…. Campbell. He writes that:
“Geneticists” are laying open our heredity like the circuit board of a radio…. Campbell. the creation of persons whose genome is partly borrowed from other species is entirely possible. it is hard to imagine how a system of inheritance could be more ideal for engineering than ours is. the possibility that at some future point different groups of human beings may follow divergent paths of development through the use of genetic technology – perhaps as different from one another as men and women are now. Campbell points out that any attempt to raise the [IQ] of the whole human race would be tediously slow. is among those who advocate radical interventionism.162
Population Management
As pointed out by the bioethicist and theologian Joseph Fletcher as early as 1973. a biologist at the University of California. In point of fact. the fact that human nature is not fixed. the collapse of inter-species barriers.
162 Population Management | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
. the possibility of not simply discovering genes. Biologist Reasoning that the majority of humankind will not voluntarily accept qualitative population-management policies. but of creating them.

advocates the abandonment of “Homo sapiens” as a “relic” or “living fossil” and the application of genetic technologies to intrude upon the genome. one of the sites circulating Campbell’s article is that of “Prometheism.Population Management
163
He further points out that the general thrust of early “Eugenics” was not so much species improvement as the prevention of decline. Not accidentally. Freed from the “drag” of an outdated species that is already in decline. Campbell projects.”
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | Population Management
163
. Our current intellect. therefore. Campbell anticipates the creation of new species according to the punctuated equilibrium scenario discussed earlier. He then goes on to advocate an old idea – “Eugenic” religions. Practitioners of the new “Eugenics” would view themselves as intermediaries of evolution rather than as finished products. is probably unable even to comprehend the mental attributes that descendants will struggle to conceive. probably writing novel genes from scratch using a DNA synthesizer. Campbell’s “Eugenics”. Such “Eugenics” would be practiced by elite groups. whose achievements would so quickly and radically outdistance the usual tempo of evolution that within ten generations the new groups will have advanced beyond our current form to the same degree that we transcend apes. they could evolve in intelligence in a geometrical increase – forever.

The most significant legacy of our age will not be nuclear power. he points out that some appropriate genetic technologies are already available:
“Private “auto-evolution” is not a possibility for a distant future. as we know it today. political achievements or a static ethics for a “sustainable” society. computers.
164
Population Management | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)
. On the other hand. nor is it a science fiction. intelligence is awesome to contemplate. even open-ended. at least. It is with us now. Greater. It will be the closure of our rational intellect around our evolution. small-group directed evolution is at once heartening and depressing. “
Campbell’s projection of rapid. albeit at an early enough phase to have escaped most people’s attention…. how sad it is for those “living fossils” who constitute the mass of humanity – humanity.” “The world waits to see whose faces will adorn them.
Campbell adds further:
“The statues of the 21st century will celebrate the fathers of “Homo auto-catalyticus“… those who brought evolution under its own reason.164
Population Management
Lastly.

2. What this means is that if the “Eugenics” platform is to have any chance of success. it will have to adopt a posture of nonpartisanship and link itself to neither the political right nor the left. but defines society as the entire human community over time.) A supply of natural resources. and 3. The three other legs are: 1. Such conditions are viewed as either essential to survival or intrinsically linked to the very meaning of existence. The movement perceives itself as the fourth leg of the table upon which that community rests. for strategic considerations. At the same time. All other considerations – political parties. or even the welfare of today’s population – are perceived as flowing from and subordinate to these fundamental necessities. the movement cannot afford embroilment in inter-group conflict or even intergroup comparisons. for example.) A clean. This means that we are dealing with what “Eugenicists” consider to be non-negotiable issues. bio-diverse environment.
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | Population Management
165
.Population Management
165
The reader will recall that the “Eugenics” movement does not limit itself to the present population.) A human population no larger than the planet can comfortably sustain on an indefinite basis.

166

Population Management

While these areas may constitute legitimate concerns for the political scientist, the sociologist, or the human biologist, history has demonstrated that their pursuit within the “eugenic” agenda can be counter-productive and even disastrous. Scholars and scientists wishing to promote the “Eugenics” agenda will have to search for commonalities with other thinkers rather than enter into conflict with them. Ideological separation will require a self-discipline that no one will readily embrace. To be honest, some of these topics can be of “eugenic” significance. At the very least, they can intersect with “eugenic” considerations. Presently, such self-control is not even being attempted. A post-human or even a non-human evolutionary path to intelligence – as opposed to a general uplifting of the whole population – therefore appears more and more likely. Genetic [IQ] potential will drop by about a point per generation among the broad masses, while the privileged classes would create even more of a two-tier society than we already have. Legal barriers are already being erected in a frantic attempt to prevent a resurgence of “Eugenics”, but to believe that such measures can be completely effective is a hopeless fantasy. Campbell’s logic is inescapable. The rejection of traditional within-species “Eugenics” – despite all the posturing of society – will inevitably lead to the scenario he describes.
166 Population Management | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)

Population Management

167

The invention of writing created a global human mind, in which knowledge is passed on and accumulated over generations. In the process, individual people specialize in specific fields, and no one today would be tempted to speak of “universal geniuses.” There is simply too much to know. While the human brain has been millions of years in the making, computers, which have been in development really for only about a century, are already beating the best human players at chess. “Hal” from 2001: A Space Odyssey, by Stanley Kubrick may not yet have been born, but he is even now kicking in his binary womb. Carbon-based technology has its limitations. The individual human brain is limited by its size, by the amount of time available for learning, and by the speed at which it can process information. A computer can be created of any size with limitless memory and limitless programming. As for speed, current technology is already processing information in picoseconds (trillionths of a second), whereas the human brain is capable of mere microseconds. The human mind is itself a machine, and its quirks, selfconsciousness, and adaptability will all eventually be explained, even though we are only beginning to unlock its secrets. Currently a noisy debate is ongoing as to whether computers can ever equal or surpass the human brain in self-awareness, emotional experience, and moral sense, but really it is a question of when rather than whether.
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | Population Management 167

168

Population Management

168

Population Management | As annotated by Wave World Org (group)

are probably going to arrive sooner than we think. Wells in “The Time Machine”. This soon-to-be reality relegates to “Eugenics” a far more modest role than would otherwise be imaginable. we individuals are as “ephemeral” as chaff in the wind.Population Management
169
The two societies projected by H. on the other hand. and the childlike creatures will be us. childlike. of life itself has been thrust upon us. of culture. Any effort to improve the human brain is targeted at an instrument inherently limited in its capacity.G.
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | Population Management
169
. and we can either fritter away the patrimony of millions of generations in the gratification of individualistic and tribal instincts or we can stride forward to fulfill our fate. but the fate of thought. The machine brain. consuming them. will be something like God. one producing material goods and the other. Allotted only a thousand months or so of existence. shouldering our responsibilities to a future world and linking hands in the great chain of generations.

the “Eugenics” platform reemerges as timeless. Against the backdrop of our evolutionary past and future. the traditional political arena appears quaint and childish. but politics can best be summarized as the formation of alliances based on mutual advantage. The conflict of interests between us and future generations represents a moral confrontation. Which are the constituencies that will agree to partner with future generations when no quid pro quo is possible? Do such constituencies even exist?
170
Conclusion | Hermitage Publishers
. for the issues it deals with are independent of both historical advocacy and repudiation by individuals. Verse 1-9] As the collective human brain ponders both its own origins and its future. whose interests are largely peripheral and even instrumental within the context of a Darwinian world-view.Conclusion
“A father’s responsibility…”
[Deuteronomy xi. The left-right political continuum has been set according to issues of importance to currently living constituencies.

forward the web-site (url) at which this book may be downloaded free of charge in the newer “pdf ” format as annotated by Wave World Org (group). Or. Finally.] at his email address shown on the Library of Congress data page at the beginning of this book by cliking his above bookmarked and bolded “last name” shown above. if you are a teacher dealing with any area of study “sympathetic” to the field of genetics. you may also assign this book to your students as an energetic reading assignment. please contact [Glad. Following is a list of such “sympathetic” disciplines
As annotated by Wave World Org (group) | Appendix
171
. clik the hyperlink embedded in any of the italicized references of the term “pdf ” located in this book If you are a native speaker of a language other than English and you wish to volunteer to translate this book into your native tongue. John Dr. To download the current version of Adobe’s free Acrobat Reader for “pdf ” files.Appendix
171
Appendix
What Can You Do For Future Generations
Tell your friends about this book and forward to them the web-site (url) at which this book may be downloaded free of charge in the original. raw Word doc format.